Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s10518-009-9119-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Seismic response of a RC frame building designed
according to old and modern practices
Matej Rozman Peter Fajfar
Received: 6 August 2008 / Accepted: 25 April 2009 / Published online: 16 May 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract In the paper the seismic response of different variants of the three-story
reinforced concrete frame structure SPEAR is compared. The basic structure is represen-
tative of building practice before the adoption of seismic codes. This structure has been
compared with four modied variants, which were designed partly or completely in accor-
dance with the Eurocode family of standards. For seismic assessment the practice-oriented
nonlinear N2 method was used. The results demonstrate the low seismic resistance of build-
ings designed for gravity loads only. On the other hand, the advantages of new standards
are clearly apparent. By taking into account the requirements of Eurocode 8 it is possible to
ensure adequate strength, stiffness and ductility. By means of capacity design it is possible
to ensure a global plastic mechanism. All these characteristics contribute to the high seismic
resistance of structures designed according to Eurocode 8 and to their satisfactory behaviour
during earthquakes.
Keywords RC frame building Pushover analysis N2 method Seismic assessment
Eurocode 8 SPEAR building
1 Introduction
The implementation of the Eurocode standards is presently a topic of great interest in
numerous European countries. The main aimof this paper is to study the effect of the require-
ments of the newstandard Eurocode 8 (EC8) on the seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
(RC) structures in comparison with the older construction practice. A three-storey asymmet-
ric RC frame structure was selected as a test case. A comparison is provided of the seismic
M. Rozman P. Fajfar (B)
Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Institute of Structural Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering and Construction IT, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: pfajfar@ikpir.fgg.uni-lj.si
M. Rozman
e-mail: mrozman@ikpir.fgg.uni-lj.si
123
780 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
response of ve different variants of this structure. The basic building, denoted as Test, was
pseudo-dynamically tested in full scale at the ELSA laboratory in Ispra. It was designed for
vertical loads only. The basic model was compared with the variants Test 0.15 and Test
0.25. These two variants were designed for the same vertical load, geometry, and dimensions
of the load-bearing elements according to Eurocode 8 (EC 8-1 2004), using the spectrum for
ground type C. The rst was designed for a design ground acceleration (on rock, i.e. ground
type A) of 0.15g, and the second for a design ground acceleration of 0.25g. Considering the
soil factor for ground type C (S = 1.15), the peak ground accelerations amounted to 0.17
and 0.29g for the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25, respectively. Since the original dimensions
of the structural elements were not changed, it was not possible to ensure fulfilment of the
condition of global and local ductility, which is required by the standard. For this reason the
variants EC8 M and EC8 H were also studied. They were designed entirely in accordance
with the requirements of the standard. For this purpose, it was necessary to increase the size
of the columns and to adjust the dimensions of the beams. Both variants were designed for a
design ground acceleration of 0.25g (on rock). Again, ground type C was assumed, resulting
in a peak ground acceleration of 0.29g. In the case of EC8 M, the medium ductility class
(DCM) was taken into account, whereas in the case of EC8 H the high ductility class (DCH)
was selected. Apart from the comparisons of behaviour under seismic loading, comparisons
were also made of the quantity of concrete and longitudinal reinforcement for all the analysed
structures, which made it possible to estimate the effect of the new standards on the cost of
the structure. The seismic assessment was performed with the practice-oriented nonlinear
N2 method (Fajfar 1999, 2000).
The paper contributes to the evaluation of EC8. Many more systematic evaluations of the
performance of RC buildings designed with EC8, like those performed in (Panagiotakos and
Fardis 2004; Magliulo et al. 2007) are needed before all the implications of the new standard
on the seismic behaviour and costs of RC structures will be fully understood.
2 Description of the building and the loading
The investigated three-storey plan-asymmetric structure (Fig. 1) was conceived as representa-
tive of older construction in Southern European countries, but without engineered earthquake
resistance. It was designed for vertical loads only, with the construction practice and materi-
als commonly used in Southern Europe in the early 70s. The structural conguration is also
Fig. 1 The SPEAR structure (the left picture is taken from ELSA 2005)
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 781
C5
C1 C2
C9
C8
C6
C3
C7
C4
3.0 6.0
.7
9.7
4
.
0
6
.
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
5
.
0
5
.
5
3.0 5.0 1.7
m
x
y
CM
m
9.7
2
.
5
2
.
5
2
.
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
0
.
1
5
.
1
5
.
1
5
m
m
m
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 a Plan and b cross-section of the SPEAR structure
Table 1 The different variants of the structure
Variant Description
Test The original structure, which was tested at ELSA (Ispra, Italy)
Test 0.15 Structure partially designed according to EC8 (a
g
= 0.15 g, DCM (q = 3.45), ground type C
(S = 1.15)), with unchanged geometry, dimensions of the load-bearing elements and vertical
load
Test 0.25 As Test 0.15, but a
g
= 0.25 g instead of a
g
= 0.15 g
EC8 M Structure designed according to EC0, EC1 and EC8 (a
g
= 0.25 g, DCM (q = 3.45), ground
type C (S = 1.15)), with unchanged geometry, the dimensions of the load-bearing elements
were suitably increased
EC8 H As EC8 M, but DCH (q = 5.20) instead of DCM (q = 3.45)
typical of non-earthquake-resistant construction of that period. This structure was pseudo-
dynamically tested at full-scale and analyzed within the scope of the European project SPEAR
(ELSA2005). Some results of the tests and analyses are provided in (Negro et al. 2004; Jeong
and Elnashai 2005a,b; Fardis and Negro 2005; Fajfar et al. 2006; Kosmopoulos and Fardis
2007), inter alia.
2.1 Basic characteristics of the structure
The structure is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It is considered to be a residential building. The live
load, taken into account for the ve investigated variants, amounts to 2.0 kN/m
2
(Table 1).
2.1.1 Variants Test, Test 0.15 and Test 0.25
All three variants have the same geometry and vertical loading. In addition to the weight
of the structure, an additional permanent load of 0.5 kN/m
2
was taken into account. The
123
782 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
25
2
5
25
7
5
1
5
3
5
25
Column 25/25 cm
Column 25/75 cm
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/20 cm
212
412
412
Stirrups 8/25 cm
Stirrups 8/25 cm
1012
1
.
5
25
2
5
25
7
5
1
5
3
5
25
Column 25/25 cm
Column 25/75 cm
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/10 cm
214
414
820
Stirrups 6/10 cm
Stirrups 6/8 cm
1422
3
(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Typical cross-sections of the beams and columns of the variants a Test and b Test 0.25
dimensions of the load-bearing elements are the same for all three variants, but quantity of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement varies.
The columns have dimensions b/h = 25/25 cm, except for the strong column (C6), which
has dimensions b/h = 25/75 cm. The beams have dimensions b/h = 25/50 cm. The typical
structural elements of the basic structure (Test), as well as their longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, are shown in Fig. 3a. From this gure it is obvious that the reinforcement of
the columns is very weak. Smooth bars with an average tensile strength of 467MPa (8),
459MPa (12) and 377MPa (20) were used. The average compressive strength of the
concrete used in the structure was 25MPa. The listed characteristics of the material were
taken into account when calculating the characteristics of the cross-sections of the structural
elements (M
y
and
pl
um
) of the variant Test.
In the case of the changed structures Test 0.15 and Test 0.25, as well as in the case of EC8
Mand EC8 H, when designing according to EC8-1, design values for the C25/30 concrete and
for Grade 400 reinforcing steel were taken into account. On the other hand, when calculating
the characteristics of the cross-sections for non-linear assessment analysis, the characteristic
values of concrete and steel were considered.
In the case of the basic structure (Test) the most critical elements are the columns, which
are much weaker than the beams
_
M
Rc
0.15 0.20
M
Rb
_
. The total longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (
l
) for a typical column (25/25cm) amounts to 0.72%, which is less
than the requirement of EC8 (1.0%), and the requirement regarding the provision of at least
eight longitudinal reinforcing bars is also not met. The distance between the shear stirrups is
too large (25cm). The thickness of the concrete cover amounts to 1.5cm.
In the case of the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25 the quantity of reinforcement in the
columns was increased significantly. The reinforcement for the variant Test 0.25 is shown
in Fig. 3b. The variant Test 0.15 has similar longitudinal reinforcement in the beams but
about 40% less longitudinal reinforcement in the columns than the variant Test 0.25. The
shear reinforcement is similar for both variants. Due to the unchanged dimensions of the
load-bearing elements of the structure it was, however, not possible to full the condition
about global and local ductility, which requires that
M
Rc
1.3
M
Rb
, (1)
where
M
Rc
is the sum of the design values of the moments of resistance of the columns
framing the joint, and
M
Rb
is the sum of the design values of the moments of resistance
of the beams framing the joint. However, the ratio between the moments of resistance of the
columns and beams was considerably improved in comparison with the original structure,
and amounts, in the case of the variant Test 0.25, to:
M
Rc
0.65 0.90
M
Rb
. The
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 783
thickness of the concrete cover was increased to 3.0cm. The three oors consist of 15cm
thick monolithic RC slabs.
2.1.2 Variants EC8 M and EC8 H
In the case of the variants EC8 M and EC8 H, the requirements of the Eurocodes were taken
into account fully. Realistic values were used for the permanent loads. The permanent load,
taken into account in addition to the weight of the structure, amounted to 2.7 kN/m
2
, com-
pared to 0.5 kN/m
2
used in test structures. As a result, the total mass of these variants was 45%
larger than the total mass of test structures. The geometry of the whole structure remained
the same as in the case of the test structures, but the dimensions of individual load-bearing
elements were changed. The dimensions of the columns were increased to b/h = 35/35 cm,
and in the case of the strong column (C6) to b/h = 35/85 cm. The beams have dimensions
b/h = 35/45 cm (Fig. 4). The concrete cover amounts to 3.0cm. The slabs are the same as
in the basic variant.
In contrast to the previous variants, in which the longitudinal reinforcement of all the
columns of each storey was the same (with the exception of column C6), in the case of the
variants EC8 M and EC8 H seven different types of reinforcement were selected (Table2).
Column 35/35 cm
Stirrups
8/12 cm
822
35
Column 35/85 cm
Stirrups
8/12 cm
3
.
0
1622
1
5
35
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/9 cm
516
416
8
5
35
3
0
Column 35/35 cm
Stirrups
8/9 cm
35
Column 35/85 cm
Stirrups
8/8.5 cm
3
.
0
1
5
35
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/9 cm
8
5
35
3
0
316
316
416
420
420
1216
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Typical cross-sections of the beams and columns of the variants a EC8 M and b EC8 H
Table 2 Selected types of reinforcement for columns b/h = 35/35 cm for the variants EC8 M and EC8 H
Type Reinforcement A
s
[cm
2
]
l
[%] EC8 M EC8 H
1st & 2nd storey 3rd storey 1st & 2nd storey 3rd storey
A 814 12.32 1.01 C8, C9
B 816 16.08 1.31 C5, C8, C9 C1, C3, C5,
C7
C 416, 420 20.61 1.68 C7 C2, C5, C7, C8, C2, C4
C9
D 820 25.13 2.05 C7, C9 C1, C2, C3, C1,C4
C4
E 822 30.41 2.48 C2, C4, C5, C3
C8
F 422, 425 34.84 2.84 C3
G 825 39.27 3.21 C1
123
784 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 5 Elastic and design
acceleration spectrum according
to Eurocode 8, for ground type C
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
T [s]
S
d
[
g
]
Elastic sp. (ag = 0.15 g)
Elastic sp. (ag = 0.25 g)
Design sp. (ag = 0.15 g, DCM)
Design sp. (ag = 0.25 g, DCM)
Design sp. (ag = 0.25 g, DCH)
A particular type of reinforcement was selected for each column as the most suitable, which
was the closest to fullling the requirements of the standard and which would cause the
least possible overstrength. Thus the average ratio of total longitudinal reinforcement (
l
)
amounted, in the rst two storeys, to 2.51% (EC8 M) and 1.87% (EC8 H), and in the third
storey to 1.73 and 1.33%, respectively. In the case of the variant EC8 M the strong column
C6 (b/h = 35/85 cm) was reinforced, in the rst two storeys, with 1622 (
l
= 2.04%) and
with 1616 (
l
= 1.08%) in the third storey. In the case of the variant EC8 H, this column
was reinforced with 420 and 1216 (
l
= 1.23%) in the rst two storeys, and with 1216
and 414 (
l
= 1.02%) in the third storey.
2.2 Seismic loading
Design spectra according to EC8 for soil type Cwere used (Fig. 5). Abehaviour factor of 3.45
was taken into account for the DCM structures, and a factor of 5.2 was taken into account
for the DCH structure. It was conservatively assumed that the structures are irregular in plan.
Consequently, for all the different variants, the coefcient related to the overstrength,
u
/
1
,
amounted to 1.15 (EC 8-1 2004). As will be shown by the results of the non-linear static
analysis, which are presented in Chapter 4.2, the actual overstrength is considerably larger,
so that in the next iteration a larger value of the coefcient
u
/
1
could be taken into account,
which would result in a smaller seismic action.
2.3 Comparison of the different variants of the structure
The basic characteristics of the ve investigated variants, which have been described in detail
in Chaps. 2.1 and 2.2, are presented in Table3. The designations S1, S2 and S3 mean
the rst, second and third storey of the structure.
It is interesting to compare the longitudinal reinforcement of a typical column for the
different variants. Fig. 6 shows the quantity of reinforcement in individual storeys of the
SPEAR structure. Although, in the case of the model Test 0.25 the quantity of longitudinal
reinforcement was increased to the limit permitted by the standard EC8 (
l
= 4.0%), it
was not possible to satisfy the condition of global and local ductility without increasing the
size of the columns to b/h = 35/35 cm. The dimensions of the beams, too, were modied
(b/h = 35/45 cm). In the case of variants EC8 M and EC8 H the total quantity of concrete
in the load-bearing structure (columns, beams, slabs) increased by 9.33 m
3
(13.7%). The
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 785
Table 3 Overview of the characteristics of the different variants of the structure
Subject of the
analytical modelling
Assumptions
Test Test EC8
0.15 0.25 M H
Geometrical characteristics
Geometry The SPEAR structure
Columns b/h = 25/25 cm b/h = 35/35 cm
412 816 (S1-2) 820 (S1-2) Optimally designed
814 (S3) 816 (S3) longitudinal
reinforcement
according to EC8
for each column
(see Table2)
The strong column b/h = 25/75 cm b/h = 35/85 cm
1012 1416 (S1-2) 1422 (S1-2) 1622 (S1-2) 1216, 420
1414 (S3) 1416 (S3) 1616 (S3) 1214, 416
Beams b/h = 25/50 cm b/h = 35/45 cm
Regularity in elevation Yes
Regularity in plan No Yes
Material
Concrete f
cd
= 16.7 MPa (design; C25/30)
f
c
= 25 MPa f
c
= 25 MPa (non-linear analysis)
Steel f
yd
= 348 MPa (design; RS Grade 400)
f
y
= 459 MPa f
y
= 400 MPa (non-linear analysis)
Load and mass
Gravity loads Permanent action (G) + 0.30 variable action (Q)
Sum of axial forces in S1: 1939 S1: 2917
columns (kN) S2: 1292 S2: 1951
S3: 648 S3: 975
Calculation of mass G + 0.15 Q (S1 in S2)
G + 0.30 Q (S3)
Mass (t ) S1 and S2: 67.3; S3: 62.8; : 197.4 S1 and S2: 96.3; S3: 94.4;
: 287.0
amount of shear reinforcement in the columns of the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25 is the
same and amounts to 2.8 times the shear reinforcement in the columns of the Test structure.
In the case of EC8 M and EC8 H the amount of shear reinforcement in the columns is 4.2
and 5.6 times greater, respectively, than in the case of the Test structure. The ratios of the
sums of the moments of resistance of the columns and beams are shown for the most critical
joint in Fig. 7.
By changing the dimensions of the elements of the structure it was possible to design
it strictly in accordance with Eurocode 8. It should be mentioned that in the case of the
EC8 models the complete vertical loading according to the Eurocode standards was taken
into account, resulting in a 50% greater vertical load and a 45% greater mass than in the
case of the original structure (Table3). This difference needs to be taken into account when
123
786 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 6 The quantity of
longitudinal reinforcement in a
typical column
4.5
16.1
25.1
30.8
23.0
4.5
16.1
25.1
30.8
23.0
4.5
12.3
16.1
21.2
16.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Test Test 0.15 Test 0.25 EC8 M EC8 H
A
s
[
c
m
2
]
3rd storey
2nd storey
1st storey
Fig. 7 The ratio of the sums of
the moments of resistance of the
columns and beams
0.15
0.40
0.65
1.30 1.30
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1
M
R
c
/
M
R
b
Test
Test 0.15
Test 0.25
EC8 M
EC8 H
comparing the variants designed strictly according to EC8, and the variants of the original
structure (Test). Unlike the original structure, the changed structure satises the conditions
of Eurocode 8 with regard to regularity in plan.
A rough cost analysis was made. The results indicate that, due to a small increase in the
amount of concrete and a substantial increase in the amount of reinforcement, the cost of the
structural system without foundation (columns, beams and slabs) would increase by about 8,
12, 27 and 21%in the case of Test 0.15, Test 0.25, EC8 Hand EC8 Mstructures, respectively,
compared to the test structure. Note that this increase in cost applies only to the upper part of
the structural system and that the cost of the load-bearing structure represents only a small
part of the total costs of a building.
3 Modelling of the structure
3.1 The mathematical model
SAP2000 (2002) was used to analyse the structure. A space frame model with one element
per member was used. The RC slabs were assumed to be innitely stiff in their planes and
completely exible out of plane. The effective width of the beams was determined according
to Eurocode 2 (EC 2 2004). The accidental eccentricity, which is prescribed by Eurocode
8, was taken into account by means of additional torsional moments, acting in individual
storeys of the structure. These were obtained by multiplying the seismic forces in both hor-
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 787
Fig. 8 The moment-rotation
relationship of a plastic joint
izontal directions with the corresponding accidental mass eccentricity (0.05L
i
). Due to the
assumption of the innite stiffness of the slabs in their own plane the point of action of the
torsional moment could be anywhere in the plane of the slab. Second order theory was not
applied. With regard to the initial bending (EI) and shear (GA
s
) stiffness, in accordance with
the requirements of EC8, values equal to half the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked
cross-sections were taken into account.
Usingcentreline dimensions, the storeyheights were 2.75and3mfor the rst andthe upper
two stories, respectively. This assumption provided very good agreement of the results with
those obtained in the pseudo-dynamic tests in the validation procedure of the mathematical
model (Fajfar et al. 2006).
Beam and column exural behaviour was modelled by one-component lumped plasticity
elements, composed of an elastic beam and two inelastic rotational hinges (dened by a
moment-rotation relationship). The element formulation was based on the assumption of an
inexion point at the midpoint of the element. For beams, the plastic hinge was used for
major axis bending only. For columns, two independent plastic hinges for bending about the
two principal axes were used. The interaction between axial force and bending moment was
not considered. Elastic axial, shear and torsional response of the element was assumed. Con-
sidering the test results (for the Test structure) and the EC8 requirements (for other variants
of the SPEAR building) the possibility of a shear failure was not taken into account.
For plastic hinges, the moment-rotation relationship shown in Fig. 8 was used. It was
assumed that at the rotation
um
the moment capacity of the cross-section falls instanta-
neously to 0.2M
y
. After that it remains at this level until a rotation of 3
um
is reached (Fig. 8).
The value of 3
um
was arbitrarily chosen. It does not inuence the results. The designation
y means yielding and corresponds to damage limitation (DL), SD signies the limit state
corresponding to significant damage, NC signies near collapse, and TC signies total
collapse. Only two quantities (the moment at the elastic limit M
y
, and the plastic part
pl
um
of
the ultimate rotation
um
) have to be calculated for each element in addition to the quantities
needed for elastic analysis. The yield rotation
y
is determined by the program using the
equation
y
=
y
L
V
/3, where
y
is the yield curvature and L
V
is the shear span at the
member end, i.e. the moment/shear ratio at the end section. In the case of the columns the
moment-rotation relationship in the positive and negative direction is symmetrical, whereas
in the case of the beams it is asymmetrical due to geometry and different reinforcement at
the top and bottom.
M
y
was calculated for each element by analysing the cross-section of the element. The
plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation
um
was determined according to Equation (A.3)
in EC 8-3 (2005)
123
788 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
pl
um
=
um
y
=
1
el
0.0145 (0.25
)
_
max(0.01;
)
max(0.01; )
_
0.3
f
0.2
c
_
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_
sx
f
yw
f
c
_
(1.275
100
d
)
(2)
where the parameters have the following meanings:
el
amounts to 1.5 and 1.0 for the primary
and secondary seismic elements, respectively, = N/A
c
f
c
is the normalised axial force in
the element, = (A
st
f
y
)/(A
c
f
c
)(or
= 3.65
= 1.52
= 1.92
is equal to the elastic displacement demand. In the case of the EC8 M structure, the period
T