Dissertation2003 Lupoi

Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Universit degli Studi
di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN
REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL

LIMITATIONS AND PERFORMANCES
OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR SEISMIC
ASSESSMENT
OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

By

GIORGIO LUPOI

Supervisors: Prof. PAOLO EMILIO PINTO
Prof. GIAN MICHELE CALVI

June, 2003

The dissertation entitled Limitations and performances of different approaches for seismic
assessment of existing buildings, by Giorgio Lupoi, has been approved in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Paolo Emilio Pinto ________________________________

Gian Michele Calvi ________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work has been carried out under partial funding from the EU project SPEAR (Contract No.
G6RD-CT-2001-00525).

ABSTRACT
The present study consists of a commented application of the three major guidance documents
on the assessment of existing buildings currently available: the New Zealand
Recommendations, the U.S. ASCE-FEMA356, and the Japanese Standard, to three structures
(two 2D and one 3D frames) which have been constructed at a large scale and tested. The main
purpose of the study is that of checking the practical applicability of the methods, the relative
ease of use, and of course the degree of agreement on the results.
The theoretical framework on which each document is based as well as the proposed methods
are outlined and commented. Differences of conceptual nature existing between the various
approaches are noted.
From the small number of cases examined is not possible to systematically trace the differences
in the results produced by the different approaches. The large difference in the way the shear
capacities of members and joints are evaluated has been a decisive factor in some cases for the
determination of the ultimate capacity of the entire building. However, even if this source of
discrepancy of the results from the various approaches was eliminated, the present exploration
indicates that significant differences would remain, linked to the criteria used to relate the
capacity curve to the response spectrum, or to the use of elastic analysis combined with local
ductility factors, as in the U.S. FEMA356, instead of the global mechanism analysis of New
Zealand.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aknowledgement ... i

Abstract ... iii

Table of contents ...... v

List of figures . vii

List of tables ix

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1
2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.............................................................................................. 3
2.1 U.S. ASCE (FEMA 356) Prestandard................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Linear Static Procedure (LSP) .................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) ...........................................................................................6
2.1.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) ...........................................................................................6
2.1.4 Non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP) .....................................................................................7
2.1.5 Specific rules for concrete structures .......................................................................................8
2.2 New Zealand guidelines...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Force-based procedure ...........................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Displacement-based procedure ..............................................................................................14
2.2.3 Comments ..............................................................................................................................15
2.3 Japanese Guidelines .......................................................................................................... 16
3 COMPARATIVE STUDY................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Selected procedures........................................................................................................... 21
3.2 The test structures ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2.1 Pavia Frame ...........................................................................................................................21
3.2.2 Icons Frame............................................................................................................................23
3.2.3 Spear Frame ...........................................................................................................................24
3.3 Strengths of materials........................................................................................................ 25
3.4 Terms of comparison (capacity measure and earthquake input model) ............................ 26
3.5 Non-linear numerical analysis........................................................................................... 27

3.6 Risk reduction factor ......................................................................................................... 28
4 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS............................................................................................. 29
4.1 FEMA 356: linear static .................................................................................................... 29
4.2 FEMA 356: Nonlinear static ............................................................................................. 32
4.3 NZ: Simple lateral Mechanism Analysis........................................................................... 34
4.4 NZ: Nonlinear Static.......................................................................................................... 38
4.5 BDPA: 3
rd
level ................................................................................................................. 41
5 COMPARISONS.................................................................................................................. 43
6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 51
7 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX A: EC8 SPECTRA.................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX B: MATERIALS MODELS ................................................................................. 59
A.1 Concrete............................................................................................................................. 59
A.2 Steel ................................................................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX C: EARTHQUAKE INDUCED AXIAL FORCES.............................................. 63

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Mechanisms of post-elastic deformation of moment resisting frames [NZSEE 2002] 11
Figure 2. Plastic displacement profiles for hinging at the base of the building [NZSEE 2002] . 13
Figure 3. Degradation of nominal shear stress of concrete for columns [Priestley 1996] .......... 14
Figure 4. Equivalent stiffness and equivalent damping for the Shibata-Sozen approach [NZSEE
2002] ................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5. View of Pavia frame ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 6. Gravity loads for Pavia frame...................................................................................... 22
Figure 7. Reinforcement of columns and beams for Pavia frame............................................... 23
Figure 8. Four-storey frame, Icons.............................................................................................. 24
Figure 9. Gravity loads for Icons frame ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 10. Geometric characteristics of the three test-structures ................................................ 25
Figure 11. Plant of Ispra frame and details of the columns reinforcement ................................. 25
Figure 12. EC8 elastic and design spectra .................................................................................. 26
Figure 13. Fiber model................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 14. Numbering of joints and sections and values of the coefficients of the vertical
distribution of the lateral load ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 15. Uniform and triangular vertical distributions of lateral loads.................................... 32
Figure 16. Resultant SDOF from mechanism analysis ............................................................... 37
Figure 17. Force approach of SLM for the Pavia Frame ............................................................ 37
Figure 18. Push-over curves for two types of distributions ........................................................ 38
Figure 19. Shear and flexural failures for the triangular distribution.......................................... 39
Figure 20. Design and elastic spectra for PGA at failure ............................................................ 40
Figure 21. Failure PGA for the Pavia frame................................................................................ 43
Figure 22. Failure PGA for the Icons frame................................................................................ 44
Figure 23. Collapse points of push-over procedures for Pavia frame......................................... 44
Figure 24. Collapse points of push-over procedures for Icons frame ......................................... 45
Figure 25. Comparison of shear capacities of joints for the Pavia and Icons frames.................. 45
Figure 26. Comparison of shear capacities of beams and columns for the Pavia and Icons frames
............................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 27. Equivalent SDOF....................................................................................................... 46

Figure 28. PGAs for different ductility levels ............................................................................ 48
Figure 29. Resisting frames of SPEAR structure ........................................................................ 49
Figure 30: Failure PGA for the 3D Spear building...................................................................... 49
Figure 31: EC8 acceleration spectrum Type 1, soil C................................................................. 58
Figure 32: EC8 displacement spectrum Type 1, soil C............................................................... 58
Figure 33: Stress strain relationship for different level of lateral confinement ........................... 60
Figure 34: Stress strain relationship of the concrete ................................................................... 61
Figure 35: Stress strain relationship of the steel.......................................................................... 61

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Classification of vertical elements ................................................................................ 18
Table 2. Value of displacement compatibility factor .................................................................. 18
Table 3. Ductility index .............................................................................................................. 18
Table 4. Materials strength of the test structures (MPa) ............................................................. 26
Table 5. Values of minimum multiplier for each limit states ................................................. 31
Table 6. Collapse point for the four push-over analyses............................................................. 33
Table 7. Sway Indexes ................................................................................................................ 35
Table 8. Base Shear at yielding and collapse.............................................................................. 35
Table 9. Curvature ductility and shear demand for the four base-columns ................................ 36
Table 10. Collapse point for the four analyses............................................................................ 40
Table 11. Results of the 3
rd
level procedure for the three different floors .................................. 42
Table 12. Failure mechanism according to the different procedures ......................................... 48

1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake engineering experts, public Authorities and general public alike concur on the idea
that the assessment of the seismic safety of the built environment is a matter of high priority.
Awareness of the problem has been accelerated by the disastrous effects observed in recent
seismic events, in terms of loss of lives as well as of immediate and long-term economic losses.
The evolution of the attitude has been, one might say, more rapid that the capacity of the
technical community to cope adequately with it. Not because the seriousness of the problem had
escaped to it, but because the core activity had to be directed towards the improvement and the
harmonisation of the codes for the design of the new structures, on one hand, and also because
of the intrinsic difficulty of dealing with the problem of existing structures with procedures at
the same time rigorous, general, and practically applicable. This latter difficulty is compounded
with the lack of experimental data and models for the behaviour and the capacity of non-
seismically detailed members. The situation is now improving, with the appearance of recent
guidance documents on assessment from New Zealand [NZSEE, 2002], U.S.A. [ASCE, 2002]
and Japan [JBDPA, 1977-90], while Europe is about to complete its new Eurocode (Eurocode 8,
Part 3) on the subject.
Though each of these documents has been thoroughly checked for internal consistency,
comparative applications to selected structures have not been performed to date. Yet these test
applications are deemed to be interesting for a number of reasons: the procedures depart in
different ways from the direct design approaches, they make use of different models for
assessing the capacity of existing members, they provide more or less explicit and stringent
guidance to the user, and of course they offer different levels of complexity. Furthermore, trying
to explain results obtained from different procedures provides an excellent opportunity for
looking into the inner mechanisms of the procedures, and from this to pinpoint the more
relevant or critical aspects.

2 Chapter 1. Introduction

The present study consists of a commented application of the three documents mentioned above
to the three structures (two 2D and one 3D frames) which have been constructed at a large scale
and tested (except the 3D one at the time of this writing) in the experimental facilities of the
University of Pavia and of the JRC in Ispra. Complete knowledge of the material properties,
reinforcement details and of the results from the actual tests are the reasons behind this
particular choice.

2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This section provides a brief general introduction to the three regulatory documents used in this
study, in order to highlight their main features as well as the principal differences among them.
2.1 U.S. ASCE (FEMA 356) Prestandard
The ASCE Prestandard for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, commonly known as
FEMA 356, is a comprehensive State-of-the-Art document on rational quantitative seismic
assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings of concrete, steel or cast iron, masonry and
timber construction, and represents the most recent US development in seismic assessment. In
broad terms, it can be said to belong to the category of the displacement based approaches.
A brief summary is provided hereafter, focusing on the aspects relevant to the assessment of
concrete structures.
The assessment process starts with the definition of one or more Rehabilitation Objectives, each
one consisting on the selection of both a Target Building Performance Level and of the
corresponding Seismic Hazard Level. Several options are available. The Building
Performance Level is given by a combination of a Structural Performance Level, varying
from Immediate Occupancy to Collapse Prevention, and a Non Structural Performance
Level, varying from Operational to Not-Considered.
The seismic hazard can be represented either by an acceleration response spectrum or by
acceleration time histories. Two basic Earthquake Hazard Levels are defined: Basic Safety
Earthquake 1, corresponding to an event with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return
period equal to 475 years), and Basic Safety Earthquake 2, corresponding to an event with 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period equal to 2475 years). A response spectrum
for different soil types and damping coefficients is provided as function of two parameters: the

4 Chapter 2. Reference Documents

short-period response acceleration,
XS
S , and the long-period response acceleration,
1 X
S , which
have to be determined using the values taken from approved maps developed by the United
States Geological Survey and modified for the soil class of the site.
The selection of the so-called knowledge factor comes next. It accounts for the
uncertainties in the collection of as-built data and depends on the selected Rehabilitation
Objective, the accuracy of the data collected and the selected analysis procedure. The values for
are tabled in the Prestandard, varying from 0.75 to 1.
The actual assessment of the building can now be undertaken, according to one of the two
possible Rehabilitation Methods: the Simplified Rehabilitation Method and the Systematic
Rehabilitation Method. The former may be applied to certain buildings of regular configuration
that do not require advanced analytical procedures; the latter may be applied to any building
and involves thorough checking of each existing structural element or component, . , and the
verification of acceptable overall performance represented by expected displacements and
internal forces.
In this study, attention is concentrated on the more accurate method, i.e. the Systematic
Rehabilitation. Four different analysis procedures are allowed for the evaluation of the response
of the building: the linear static (LSP), the linear dynamic (LDP), the non-linear static (NSP)
and the non-linear dynamic (NDP).
The two linear procedures (LSP and LDP) are permitted only for buildings with a regular
structural configuration. A regular configuration is defined by means of geometrical
requirements and of a parameter called demand-capacity ratio (DCR), which is defined as the
ratio between the force acting on a member due to gravity and earthquake loads and its expected
strength. This parameter is intended to be a rough evaluation of magnitude and distribution of
the inelastic demands in the building; it is used however only to determine the structural
regularity.
The static procedures (LSP and NSP) are permitted only for those structures in which higher
mode effects are not significant. No limitations are set to the use of the non-linear dynamic
procedure.
The members are classified as primary or secondary according to their function: primary
elements are those that provide the capacity of the structure to resist collapse under seismic
force, secondary elements are all the others. Only primary elements are included in the
mathematical model of the structure. Detailed instructions are provided to include in the
analysis torsional as well as P effects.

U.S. ASCE (Fema 356) Prestandard 5

The internal actions on members are classified as either deformation-controlled or force
controlled: the first ones are characterised by a ductile behaviour, the second ones by a brittle
behaviour. The classification is not up to the user, but it is explicitly indicated in the document.
In RC frame-type buildings, for example, the bending moment in beams and columns is
considered as a deformation-controlled action, while the shear is considered as a force-
controlled action.
This distinction governs the way in which verification of the elements is carried out. In the first
place, it affects the evaluation of the elements capacity: the expected value for the materials
strength is used for deformation-controlled actions, a lower-bound estimate for force-controlled
actions. More importantly, the limit state equation that governs the capacity/demand comparison
changes in accordance with the type of action: this latter point will be illustrated in detail
separately for each of the analysis procedures.
2.1.1 Linear Static Procedure (LSP)
The building response is evaluated by a linear elastic analysis. The seismic action is modelled as
a horizontal lateral load V , whose intensity is determined by the following expression
W S C C C C V
a m 3 2 1
= ,
(1)
where:
1
C is a modification factor relating the expected maximum inelastic displacements to
the calculated elastic response;
2
C represents the effect of stiffness degradation and strength
deterioration on maximum displacement response;
3
C accounts for the increase of the
displacements due to P effects;
m
C is the effective weight factor to account for higher
modal mass participation effects, depending on the structural typology and on the number of
storeys;
a
S is the Response Spectral Acceleration at the fundamental period and damping ratio
of the building in the direction under consideration and W is the total weight of the building.
The lateral load V is vertically distributed at floor levels proportionally to the floor mass and to
the floor height.
The fundamental period of the building can be estimated using either an empirical expression
provided in the document, or by an eigenvalue analysis, or by the Rayleigh-Ritz method.
A capacity/demand approach is applied to carry out the assessment for each individual element.
For deformation-controlled actions, the limit-state equation reads:
E G CE
Q Q Q m .
(2)
In the left hand side of Eq. (2), the member capacity is given by the product of the expected
strength
CE
Q times the knowledge factor times the local ductility factor m. The latter is


introduced to account for the expected ductility associated with this action. Values of m are
given as functions of section geometry, amount of reinforcement, amount of the shear force and
selected performance level. For the Collapse Prevention performance level the values of m
for beams range between 7 and 2.
On the right hand side of Eq. (2) the demand on the members is the sum of the gravity load
effects
G
Q and of the earthquake load effects
E
Q .
For force-controlled actions, the limit-state equation reads:
J C C C
Q
Q Q
E
G CL
3 2 1
.
(3)
The member capacity is the product of the lower-bound strength
CL
Q times the knowledge
factor . The effects of the earthquake loads are reduced by the coefficients
1
C ,
2
C ,
3
C
already introduced in Eq. (1) and by the force-reduction factor J , which is greater than or equal
to 1.0. Its value may be taken as the smallest DCR of the components or, alternatively, equal to
2.0, 1.5 and 1.0 in Zones of High, Moderate and Low Seismicity, respectively.
The limit-state equations reflect the failure mechanisms associated with the two types of
actions: in the case of a ductile behaviour, Eq. (2), the capacity is increased by the ductility
factor m; in the case of a brittle behaviour, Eq. (3), the external elastic action is reduced by the
coefficient J , to account for the inelastic behaviour of the elements delivering load to the
brittle element.
Although the verifications for both force-controlled and deformation-controlled actions are
expressed in terms of forces, the procedure belongs to the category of the displacement-based
approaches, since its qualifying feature is the implicit adoption of the equal displacement rule
(adjusted by the factor
1
C ).
2.1.2 Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP)
The only difference with respect to the LSP is the method of analysis: a modal spectral analysis
is carried out using un-reduced linear elastic response spectra. The members verifications are
analogous to those of the LSP.
2.1.3 Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP)
The demand on the building is calculated by means of a push-over analysis. The inelastic
behaviour of the structure is explicitly accounted for in the numerical model by use of either
concentrated or diffused plasticity element formulations. A monotonically increasing lateral
load is applied to the building until a target displacement
t
is reached at a control node, taken

U.S. ASCE (Fema 356) Prestandard 7

to be the centre of mass at the roof of the building. The target displacement is intended to
represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced during the design earthquake
and it is determined by the expression:
g
4
T
S C C C C
2
2
e
a 3 2 1 0
=
t
.
(4)
where
0
C is a modification factor relating the spectral displacement of an equivalent single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system to the roof displacement of the building, and
1
C ,
2
C ,
3
C and
a
S have been defined in section 2.1.1.
The push-over analysis yields a relation between the base shear and the displacement at the
control node. This force/displacement curve is bi-linearised and the effective fundamental
period of the building calculated according to the expression:
e
i
i e
K
K
T T = .
(5)
where
i
T is the elastic fundamental period,
i
K is the elastic lateral stiffness,
e
K is the effective
lateral stiffness.
The format of the limit state equation is common to both displacement-controlled and force-
controlled actions:
( )
t
D C > .
(6)
The Eq. (6) says that the member capacity C has to be greater than the demand D evaluated at
the target displacement
t
. It is worth noting that for deformation-controlled action, the check is
made in terms of ultimate rotation capacity and demand, not in terms of bending moments, as in
the two linear procedures (LSP and LDP). The expected rotational capacity is tabled in the
document for several typical section and reinforcement configurations.
A further condition is put on the base shear at the target displacement, which cannot be less than
80% of the effective yield strength of the structure.
2.1.4 Non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP)
The numerical model of the building and the limit-state equations are similar to those of the
NSP. The only difference is that the structural response is calculated using a Time History
Analysis.


2.1.5 Specific rules for concrete structures
The flexural strength and the deformation capacity of members are calculated in accordance
with either the procedures of ACI 318 or other approved methods. Reductions in the
deformation capacity due to the shear have to be taken into consideration.
The shear strength has to be calculated in accordance with the procedures of ACI 318. A
reduction of 50% of the contribution of the transverse reinforcement is required if the
longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcements exceeds half of the component effective
depth.
In setting up the numerical model, the members stiffness has to be calculated taking into
account the effective state of stress as well as the bar-slippage phenomenon. The reduction
coefficients for the members initial stiffness, to be applied in the case of linear analysis, are
explicitly indicated in the document. For example, the effective stiffness of beams is taken as
equal to half of the initial, un-cracked, stiffness. In columns, the reduction depends on the stress
state under gravity load; it varies form 0.5 to 0.7 of the initial stiffness.
2.2 New Zealand guidelines
The document produced by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering provides a
means of assessing the capability of existing buildings to reach an adequate level of seismic
performance and, where found necessary, improving the seismic performance up to a certain
level. A first draft was circulated for comment in 1996 and a second general draft was
completed in 2002.
Two levels of assessment are considered in the document: an Initial Evaluation of the state of
the building and a Detailed Assessment. The Initial Evaluation is a coarse screening, similar
to the simplified procedure of FEMA 356, which is intended to provide an approximate
assessment of the likely performance of a building in an earthquake. The Detailed Assessment is
intended to evaluate with greater accuracy the capability of an existing building to perform
satisfactorily under an earthquake of selected level of intensity through application of more
advanced procedures. In this study the attention is concentrated on the Detailed Assessment.
The focus of the detailed procedure is the determination of demand on structural elements,
resulting form the response of the building, and the assessment of the capacity of such elements
to meet the demand without causing loss of structural integrity. The NZ document concentrates
only on matters relating to life safety, i.e. collapse which leads to loss of life. The ultimate limit
state (ULS) is selected as boundary between the acceptable and the unacceptable performance.

New Zealand guidelines 9

The ULS is conventionally reached when the building or any part of it: (a) loses stability, (b)
exceeds prescribed displacement limits or (c) is strained to the accepted limits of the (structural)
materials involved.
Three possible approaches for performing the assessment are indicated in the document: time
history analysis, force analysis and displacement analysis. Leaving out the first, which is by far
the most accurate but the most complex as well, the attention is set on the other two approaches.
In the document it is stated that the displacement-based approach is generally considered to
produce more rational and less conservative assessment outcome, the force-based one is more
familiar to designers. This is as far as the document goes in assessing the relative merits of the
two approaches.
Four analysis methods of different level of sophistication are proposed for the evaluation of the
structural response. Two of them rely on linear elastic theory: a traditional equivalent static
analysis and a modal response spectrum analysis. Limitations to the use of the elastic methods
similar to those of FEMA are set in the NZ document. The other two consider inelastic
behaviour; these are: Simple Lateral Mechanism analysis (SLM) and lateral push-over
analysis. It is observed that the proposed procedures are the same as those in the FEMA
document, with the exception of the SLM that is a peculiarity of the NZ document. This
approach involves a hand analysis to determine the probable collapse mechanism, its lateral
strength and displacement capacity, with the help of simplified considerations of capacity issues
(relative strengths in flexure and shear, etc.). The behaviour of the structure is reduced to that of
an equivalent SDOF system.
The main weakness of SLM approach is the inability to identify the sequence of development of
inelastic action between different members of the structure, a result achievable by means of a
push-over simulation.
The model of the earthquake action depends on the analysis method applied. The acceleration
response spectra and the displacement response spectra to be used in the assessment according
to force-based or displacement-based approaches, respectively, are those defined in the NZ
loading code [SNZ, 1976].
A brief outline of both force-based and displacement-based procedures is given in the
following, in the same way as they are presented in the original document. As it will be seen,
the route followed to determine the likely lateral inelastic mechanism and its
strength/deformation capacity is common to both procedures, i.e. the SLM analysis method and
the push-over, the essential difference intervening in the way the structural response is
evaluated.


2.2.1 Force-based procedure
The procedure starts with the evaluation of members capacities. The probable flexural strengths
are calculated according to standard theory. The shear strengths in beams, columns and joints
are derived by means of the expressions provided in the document. A strength reduction factor
equal to 0.85 is applied to account for the approximation in the shear theory. The calculations
are to be based on the expected values for the materials strengths. If the data available are not
reliable, a variation of either one standard deviation or +/- 20% of the mean is suggested. It is
required to consider the earthquake-induced axial force in the calculation of the flexural and
shear capacities of the columns.
The post-elastic critical mechanism is investigated next. To this end, the sway potential index is
introduced. It is defined as the ratio between the sums, for all the joints at that horizontal level,
of the probable flexural strengths of beams over the probable flexural strengths of columns:
( )
( )
+
+
=
cb ca
br bl
i
M M
M M
S ,
(7)
where
bl
M and
br
M are the flexural capacities of the beams at left and right of the joint and
ca
M and
cb
M refer to the columns above and below the joint.
If 85 . 0 >
i
S , the NZ document suggests that plastic hinges would develop in the columns;
otherwise they would develop in the beams. The most likely post-elastic mechanism may be
established from the calculation of the
i
S s at all levels. The possible outcomes are: a column
sidesway mechanism, a beam sidesway mechanism or a mixed mechanism: see Figure 1. In the
latter case, column plastic hinges would occur at some levels and beam plastic hinges at others.
The possibility of members shear failures has not been yet investigated at this point of the
procedure.
If the mechanism of post-elastic deformation is obvious from the onset, the SLM analysis
method can be applied for the calculation of the probable lateral seismic force capacity,
b
V . For
example, if a column sidesway mechanism is detected at the bottom floor, the probable lateral
force capacity of the frame is given by the sum of the shear forces in the columns of that storey,
found from the sum of the probable flexural strengths of the plastic hinges at the top and the
bottom of the columns of that storey divided by the storey height. This estimate is an upper
bound of the lateral force capacity.


Figure 1. Mechanisms of post-elastic deformation of moment resisting frames [NZSEE 2002]
If the sway-index approach does not provide a clear indication on the failure mechanism, either
a standard linear elastic analysis or a non-linear push-over analysis have to be carried out. In the
first case, a linear-elastic model of the frame is set up; the equivalent static horizontal forces are
increased until the first plastic hinge forms. This method provides a lower bound to the probable
lateral force capacity of the frame, not accounting for moment redistributions. In the second
case, the inelastic deformation capacity of members is explicitly taken into account in the
structural model and the applied lateral loads are increased until the flat branch of the
force/displacement curve is reached. The NZ document suggests to apply both an inverted
triangular and a uniform horizontal force distribution.
The push-over analysis is more accurate than the SLM or the LSP, but it is also more complex.
The benefit of using the SLM approach is obvious, since it does not require numerical
modelling of the structure.
The probable base shear coefficient, i.e. the spectral acceleration at failure, is calculated by
means of the expression:
( )
RZ S W
T C
p t
b
sd h
V
= , ,
(8)
where
t
W is the total weight of the structure,
p
S is the structural performance factor, R is the
return period factor based on the life span of the structure, Z is the zone factor and corresponds
to the response acceleration at 0.5 sec on a rock site with a 500-year return period. The values of
Z and R are specified in the document; their product defines the anchoring of the spectrum.
The force-based approach comes here into play: using the appropriate seismic hazard
acceleration spectra of NZS 4203:1192, the required structural ductility factor
sd
is derived
on the basis of
h
C and of the elastic period of the frame T . The NZ document does not indicate


explicitly how to compute the fundamental period of the structure; it is however required to
include the effects of cracking on the section properties. The use of the acceleration spectrum
implicitly assumes that the structure behaviour can be represented as that of a SDOF oscillator.
The assessment whether the required demand
sd
can be satisfied by the available structural
ductility
sc
comes next. Three methods for the evaluation of
sc
are outlined in the NZ
document. The first one is a simple and qualitative evaluation of
sc
, based on the most likely
mechanism and on the detailing of the lateral reinforcement. A second possibility is to derive
the global displacement ductility
sc
directly from the (local) inelastic capacity of members
sections. To this end, empirical expressions of the plastic deformation are provided in the
document for the cases of beam sidesway and column sidesway mechanisms (see Figure 2,
which refers to plastic hinging occurring at the base of the building):
( ) | | mm h L h
e P y c e p p
39 1 = = =

,
(9)
where
p
is the plastic rotation of the column,
e
h is the equivalent height of the building,
c

is the curvature ductility,
y
is the yielding curvature and
p
L is the plastic-hinge length. The
latter is function of the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement
b
d and the yield strength of
the steel
y
f :
y b P
f d L L + = 022 . 0 08 . 0 ,
(10)
with L being the length of the member.
In addition lateral displacement of the frame at first yield
y
has to be evaluated. In the
document it is generically suggested to carry out a linear elastic push-over analysis for the
determination of
y
(it is believed that the analysis has to stop when the yielding moment in
any of the members sections is reached). This solution, however, represents a limitation to the
use of the SLM method, whose key feature is to avoid numerical modelling. Alternatively, an
empirical expression for
y
is provided in the context of a development of the SLM approach
proposed by Priestley into an appendix of the document:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
e
b
b
y y
h
h
l
5 . 0 ,
(11)
where
y
is the steel yielding strain,
b
l is the length of the shortest span,
e
h is the equivalent
height of the building and
b
h is the beam section height.


Figure 2. Plastic displacement profiles for hinging at the base of the building [NZSEE 2002]
The third method for the evaluation of
sc
is the non-linear static push-over: the lateral forces
are increased until the available ultimate curvature is reached at the critical plastic hinge. The
ultimate displacement is then obtained from numerical simulation. This option represents the
most advanced and accurate method available thus far.
If
sd sc
< , the procedure is terminated, with the conclusion that structure needs to be
retrofitted. If
sd sc
> , a check whether shear failures occur before the ultimate flexural plastic
rotations are reached needs to be carried out.
For each member, the reduction of the shear strength due to the curvature ductility demand
associated with the development of plastic hinges is estimated using the degradation laws
proposed by Priestley and co-workers (see for example Figure 3). The reduced shear strength,
cr
V , is compared with the shear demand on member generated by the plastic hinges (flexural)
mechanism,
fl
V , the latter obtained from the equilibrium condition considering the ultimate
values of bending moments. If
fl cr
V V < , strengthening is necessary.
A final check on the inter-storey drift is required to ensure against significant P effects and
damage to non-structural elements.


Figure 3. Degradation of nominal shear stress of concrete for columns [Priestley 1996]
2.2.2 Displacement-based procedure
The first part of the procedure dealing with the calculation of the members strengths, the
identification of most-likely failure mechanism and the evaluation of the frame probable lateral
force capacity, is the same as the force-based procedure.
The next step consists in checking the actual available shear strength, accounting for its possible
reduction due to curvature ductility demand, following the same procedure as described in the
previous section. Following this check the available local rotation capacities are reduced, if
necessary, to the values pertaining to actual shear capacity. It is noted that this check on shear is
anticipated with respect to the force-based procedure.
The global ductility capacity of the structure,
sc
, is found as in the force-based procedure. The
available displacement capacity at failure is obtained simply as:
( )
sc y sc
+ = 1 .
(12)
For the evaluation of the yielding displacement, the indications given in the previous section
apply.
The demand due to the earthquake action is now evaluated applying the substitute-structure
approach [Shibata and Sozen 1976]. The frame behaviour is again reduced to that of a SDOF
oscillator, but the effective stiffness at maximum displacement is used:
sc
b
eff
V
K
= ,
(13)
from which the effective period T for the structure is calculated as:
eff
K
M
T 2 = ,
(14)
where M is the mass of the structure.


The maximum displacement demand
sd
is found from a set of displacement response spectra,
relative to different levels of the equivalent viscous damping,
v
. The level of damping of the
frame depends on the ductility capacity
sc
and on the predominant form of plastic hinging
developed. Curves are provided relating
v
to
sc
for the most common failure mechanisms
(see Figure 4).
Thus, in the displacement procedure the seismic response is characterised by an effective
stiffness and an equivalent damping, rather than the elastic stiffness and the 5% damping as
used in the force-based design or assessment.
The required structure displacement demand is compared to the ultimate displacement capacity.
Acceptable performance is indicated by the ratio
sd sc
resulting greater than one.

Figure 4. Equivalent stiffness and equivalent damping for the Shibata-Sozen approach [NZSEE 2002]
2.2.3 Comments
The above summaries show that the objective common to both approaches is the determination
of the structure lateral capacity and of the structure yielding and ultimate displacements. For this
purpose, either a simplified hand procedure, i.e. the SLM approach, or a more accurate push-
over analysis may be resorted to. Furthermore, both procedures reduce the structure behaviour
to that of a SDOF oscillator, characterised by a force-displacement relation. Thus, their only
difference lies in the way the earthquake demand on the frame is established, which is however
not a secondary point. The force-based approach uses an acceleration spectrum in conjunction
with the initial elastic period of the structure to estimate the required ductility demand; the
displacement-based approach uses a displacement spectrum and an equivalent period to estimate
the maximum displacement demand.


Both criteria are admittedly approximate, and a judgement on their relative merits is not within
the scope of the present study. A comment that is relevant to the present study, however, is that
the magnitude of the difference between the results obtainable with the two criteria can be easily
absorbed in the overall approximation of the SLM method, which varies from case to case and
rests to a considerable extent on the skill of the analyst. The push-over analysis, on the other
hand, which incidentally is a displacement-based procedure, gives a more uniform level of
approximation and, in spite of its own limitations, covers a much more wide range of practical
applications than the SLM method.
2.3 Japanese Guidelines
The first publication of the Standard for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, edited by a committee organised by the Ministry of
Construction, goes back to 1977. The Standard was revised in December 1990 and its
effectiveness has been tested at the occasion of several earthquakes, for school buildings in
particular.
The standard may be applied to evaluate the seismic performance of an existing reinforced
concrete building whose structural system is made of moment resisting frames, with or without
shear walls. Its application is limited to low-rise buildings, since the standard assumes constant
acceleration response (flat response acceleration spectrum with periods) [Otani 2000].
Three procedures of different accuracy and reliability are available for the assessment. The first-
level procedure is a simple screening procedure aimed at classifying earthquake resistant
buildings based on their storey shear strengths, provided by either columns or/and structural
walls. The buildings classified as questionable by the first-level procedure, must be analysed
by the more sophisticated second-level procedure, in which the deformation capacities of
vertical members are also considered. Finally, the third-level procedure is a refined version of
the second level, in which also the weak beam-strong column mechanism is included [FIB
2003]. The attention of the present study is concentrated on the latter procedure.
The Japanese assessment consists in the comparison of the floor shear demand due to the
earthquake action versus the floor shear capacity, for every storey and every frame of the
building:
i
c
i
d
V V .
(15)
The floor shear capacity is defined by the following product:
i i i
c
E S T V
0 0
= .
(16)

Japanese guidelines 17

In Eq. (16), the factor T accounts for the time-dependent deterioration of the members strength
and the factor
i
S
0
accounts for geometry or stiffness irregularity and/or mass concentration at
floor i . Both T and
i
S
0
are functions of several factors, whose number depends on the level of
the assessment. Their evaluation is based on the results of field-surveys.
The most relevant factor in Eq. (16) is the basic structural performance index
i
E
0
, which is
defined by the following product:
i i
U
i
q V E =
0
,
(17)
where
i
U
V is the shear resistance of all vertical elements at floor i and
i
q is the ductility index,
a measure of the deformation capacity of floor i .
The shear resistance
i
U
V depends on the type of failure mechanism. The latter is established
through simple equilibrium considerations. The lesser between the shear force due to a plastic
hinges (flexural) mechanism and the members shear strengths gives the floor shear resistance
i
U
V .
The possibility of a weak-beam/strong-column failure mechanism is also investigated. To this
end, a joint index similar to that of New Zealand document may be resorted to:
Uca Ucb
Ubr Ubl
j
M M
M M
S
+
=
+
+
or
Uca Ucb
Ubr Ubl
j
M M
M M
S
+
=
+
.
(18)
where
+
Ubl
M is the positive ultimate bending moment of the beam on the left side of the node,
Ubr
M is the negative ultimate bending moment of the beam on the right side of the node,
Ucb
M
and
Uca
M are the ultimate bending moment of the column below and above the node,
respectively. If 1
j
S , a premature beam failure is expected and the shear force on the columns
is limited by the resistance of the beams.
An interesting feature of the Japanese third-level method is about the mixed-type structures, in
which different structural types for the vertical elements are present. It is observed that the
presence of a stiffer and less ductile vertical element may significantly reduce the resistance of
the whole structure. To account for this fact, the expression of the basic performance index in
Eq. (16) is modified as:
( )
1 3 3 2 2 1 0
q V V V E
i
U
i
U
i
U
i
+ + = ,
(19)
where the shear capacity of the brittle member 1 is fully accounted for, while the capacity of the
others are reduced by a coefficient that accounts for the limited deformation capability


imposed by member 1. The deformation capacity of the whole structure is thus governed by the
less ductile, i.e.
1
q q = .
The s and
1
q depend on the type of vertical elements. A classification of them on the basis
of their type of failure is provided in the standard: the eight classes considered are reported in
the table below. All the vertical elements of the structure have to be classified in a maximum of
three groups.
The values for and q are given as functions of the class combination. The corresponding
tables from the Japanese standard are provided below.
Table 1. Classification of vertical elements
Element Definition
Col. m Column whose failure mechanism is in flexure
Col. s Column whose failure mechanism is in shear
Col. ss Short column whose failure mechanism is in shear failure and its ratio between
height and depth is smaller than two
Col. mb Column whose ultimate lateral force is caused by flexural yielding of beams
Col. sb Column whose ultimate lateral force is caused by shear failure of beams
Wall m Wall whose failure mechanism is in flexure
Wall s Wall whose failure mechanism is shear
Wall upl Wall whose ultimate lateral capacity is caused by uplift of foundation

Table 2. Value of displacement compatibility factor
Element of the first group

Col. ss Col. s or Wall s
Col. m 0.5 0.7
Col. s 0.7 1.0
Wall m or Wall s 0.7 -

Table 3. Ductility index
Mechanism q
Beam Shear 1.5
Beam Flexure 3
Column Shear 1
Column Flexure ( ) ( ) 05 . 0 1 75 . 0 1 2 +
Short Column Shear 0.8
Wall Shear 1
Wall Flexure 1 2
Wall Uplift 3.0

In Table 3, the coefficient is evaluated by:

Japanese guidelines 19

5 2 1 . 0 30 1 10
|
|
.
|
\
|

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
z f b
V
M
L V
c w
U
U
S U
,
(19)
where the last term (-2) is omitted if the hoop spacing is less than 8 times the diameter of the
compression reinforcement.
The shear demand on floor i is computed as:
=
=
st
n
j
a j
i i
D
S m k V
1
,
(21)
where
j
m is the mass of the floor j ,
a
S is the elastic spectral acceleration and the coefficient
i
k , which corresponds to a linear deflected shape of the fundamental mode of a structure with
uniform storey height and mass distribution, is calculated by the following expression:
1 2 2
3
+
+
=
st
st i
n
i n
k ,
(22)
where
st
n is number of storeys.
The spectral acceleration that leads the storey i to failure is obtained by substituting the Eq.
(21) into the Eq. (16) and equating the capacity to the demand:
=

=
st
n
j
i
j
i
C i
a
k m
V
S
1
.
(23)
Some additional provisions of general nature are reported hereafter.
The calculation of the members capacities can be based on the design values of materials
strengths in the first-level procedure, if specific tests are not available. In the case of second and
third level procedures, inspections are required to evaluate the members strengths and/or the
members ductilities.
The effect of cracks and deterioration of concrete may be neglected in the calculation of
structural performance of the elements since these effects are macroscopically accounted in
evaluation of the index T .
The torsional effects are neglected in the evaluation of
0
E because they are considered
empirically through the structural configuration factor S .

3 COMPARATIVE STUDY
This section presents the choices and the assumptions made to in using the three Codes for the
purpose of comparing the results obtainable.

3.1 Selected procedures
Assessment procedures of different accuracy and reliability are proposed in each of the codes
examined in the previous section. For the purpose of comparison the choice has been made to
use for each code both a basic-procedure, i.e. the one most likely to be applied in current
practice, and an advanced procedure based on push-over analysis, if available. Therefore, the
SLM analysis and the NSP analysis have been selected from the New Zealand document; the
LSP and the NSP from the FEMA 356, and the 3
rd
-level procedure from the Japanese
guidelines.
3.2 The test structures
The selected structures are two RC moment-resisting frames and one 3D RC building. These
structures were designed specifically to reproduce the deficiencies in seismic performance of
existing buildings and have been subjected to experimental tests.
3.2.1 Pavia Frame
Case Study 1 is a 2/3 scale-model of a 2D frame with three storeys (2m height) and three bays
(3.0, 1.3 and 2.3m respectively). The frame was built in accordance to non seismic Italian code
provisions and tested at the Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia [Calvi,
2001].

22 Chapter 3. Comparative Study

Figure 5. View of Pavia frame

Figure 6. Gravity loads for Pavia frame
The column have square cross-sections with dimension equal to 20cm while the beam have
dimensions of 20x33cm. The geometry and the reinforcement of the frame are shown in the
Figure 7.

Terms of comparison 23

Figure 7. Reinforcement of columns and beams for Pavia frame
3.2.2 Icons Frame
Case study 2 is a 2D frame tested at the ELSA Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre in the
framework of the ICONS project [Pinto et al. 2002]. This RC frame is representative of the
design and construction practice of 40-50 years ago in Southern European countries. It is a four-
storeys (2.7m height) frame with three bays (5.0, 5.0 and 2.5m respectively). The stocky column
sections are 60x25cm at the first floor and 50x25cm at the others floors; the beam sections are
50x25cm.


Figure 8. Four-storey frame, Icons
Figure 9. Gravity loads for Icons frame
3.2.3 Spear Frame
The last case study refers to a structure built in the framework of the European program SPEAR
[Fardis, 2002] and is a simplification of an actual three-storey building representative of older
construction in Southern Europe. It has been designed for gravity loads alone following the
prescriptions of the Greek design code in use between 1954 and 1995. The storey height is
3.0m.


Figure 10. Geometric characteristics of the three test-structures

COLUMNS C1-C5 & C7-C9
STIRRUPS 8/25
414

1014
STIRRUPS 8/25
COLUMN C6

Figure 11. Plant of Ispra frame and details of the columns reinforcement
3.3 Strengths of materials
A reliable estimation of the materials strengths is fundamental in assessment. All codes require
both to use the best estimates of the actual strength instead of nominal values and to account for
the uncertainty of the available information.
The mean values of the tests performed on concrete and steel are assumed as the most probable
strengths; the values used in the applications of the procedures are given in Table 4.


Note that in both the Pavia and the Icons frame two concrete qualities were used. In the Pavia frame the
type 2 is referred only to the columns of the first floor, while in Icons frame type 1 is for all the beams
and type 2 for the columns.
Table 4. Materials strength of the test structures (MPa)
Pavia Icons Spear
Concrete 1, f
c
14.01 14.28 18.00
Concrete 2, f
c
18.53 18.34
Steel, f
y
365.7 331.0 255.0

3.4 Terms of comparison (capacity measure and earthquake input model)
The comparison between the selected procedures is made in terms of the PGA value that causes
the collapse of the structure. The PGA has been arbitrarily related to the Type 1 spectrum of
EC8 for a site of soil category C; it is believed that the results of the comparisons would not
change to any significant extent if a different reference spectrum were selected.
The fundamental parameters of the spectrum, whose analytical expression are reported in
Appendix A, are the corner periods
B
T ,
C
T and
D
T (see Figure 12), which are respectively
equal to 0.2, 0.6 and 2.0 seconds, and the ratio between the spectral acceleration at the plateau
and the peak ground acceleration, which is equal to 2.875 assuming a site coefficient S equal to
1.15. In Figure 12 are shown the elastic spectrum for g PGA 1 = , % 5 = and the design
spectrum for 5 = q .
Soil C, Type 1
Tb Tc Td
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period [sec]
a
g

S

[
g
]
Elastic
Design

Figure 12. EC8 elastic and design spectra
The displacement spectrum is related to the elastic spectrum by: ( )
( )
2
,
,
T S
T
e
e
= .


Once the actual spectral acceleration at failure
f a
S
,
is evaluated, the corresponding PGA at
failure is obtained as:
( )
( ) | |
sc sc el f a
el
el a
f
T S
T S
PGA = ,
1
,
,
, (24)
where ( )
el el a
T S
,
is the elastic spectral acceleration corresponding to the normalized spectrum,
i.e. for g PGA 1 = .
Since the purpose here is not to check whether a structure is able to withstand an earthquake of
given intensity, but to assess its capacity, i.e. the PGA at failure, some minor adjustments are
needed in the practical application of the procedures: they are indicated in the appropriate
places.
3.5 Non-linear numerical analysis
Two-dimensional models of the frames and a three-dimensional model of the SPEAR building
have been set up, employing fibre elements to represent columns and beams. The Manders
constitutive model [Mander et al. 1988] has been adopted for concrete, a bilinear material
relationship for the steel, with the hardening factor for the plastic branch equal to 0.002. The
analyses have been carried out by means of the finite element code OPENSEES [McKenna
1997].

Figure 13. Fiber model


3.6 Risk reduction factor
The purpose of the codes for assessment and upgrading of existing buildings is to reduce
earthquake risk to the community. However, since it is generally recognised the impracticability
of bringing all existing buildings up to the standard of the new ones, risk factors are often
adopted, allowing for a reduced protection. This aspect has not been introduced in the present
study, whose focus is on the relative efficiency of different approaches in providing estimates of
the actual risk.

4 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS
The application of each of the selected procedures to the Pavia frame is described in detail in
this section. For the other two structures only the results are given, in the following chapter 5.
4.1 FEMA 356: linear static
The effects due to the gravity loads and to the earthquake loads are evaluated separately and
then combined.
The evaluation of the seismic action that causes failure of the frame is carried out in two steps: a
lateral load of unit value,
1
V , is applied to the frame and the corresponding demands
i
D
1
on all
considered members/mechanisms are evaluated. Then, for each mechanism, the lateral load
multiplier which satisfies the corresponding limit state equation is evaluated from:
i i i
G
i
D D C
1
+ = , (for member/mechanism i)
(25)
where
i
C is the member capacity and
i
G
D is the demand on the member due to gravity loads.
The collapse of the frame is identified by the minimum of over all mechanisms:
{ }
i
i
f

= min .
The spectral acceleration at failure is simply evaluated from Eq. (1), where the elastic lateral
force is given by:
1
V V
f
= .
(26)
All the members of the frame are classified as primary elements, i.e. essential to the resistance
of the frame against the seismic lateral load. The members flexural capacities are evaluated
using the probable material strength (see section 3.3) in accordance to the procedures of ACI
318-99; the maximum tensile deformation of the longitudinal bars is set equal to 5%. No

30 Chapter 4. Example applications

reduction on member flexural strength, which is required if the shear demand exceeds
gross c
A f
'
6 , is necessary for the frame under examination.
The shear capacities of beams, columns and joints are calculated using the expressions provided
in the Prestandard, which take into account the contributions of both concrete and lateral
reinforcement. A lower-bound of the material strength is used in the calculation of the ultimate
shear capacity, since this action is classified as force-controlled.
The demands on members,
i
D s, are calculated by means of a linear elastic finite element
analysis. In setting up the model, the stiffness of beams and columns is reduced by factor equal
to 0.5 with respect to the un-cracked value, as explicitly required by the FEMA.
The seismic action
1
V is vertically distributed at the floor levels in accordance with the
coefficients
Vx
C :
1 1
V C F
Vx x
= ,
(27)
=
=
n
i
k
i i
k
x x Vx
h w h w C
1
,
(28)
where
i
w is the portion of the total weight lumped at floor x,
x
h is the height of floor x from the
base. The exponent k is equal to 0 . 1 for sec 5 . 0 T , to 0 . 2 for sec 5 . 2 T and varies linearly
in between. The values of the coefficients
Vx
C are shown in Figure 14: the load distribution
along the frame height is almost triangular. The horizontal actions are applied in both +X
direction and X direction.
0.43
0.38
0.19
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12

Figure 14. Numbering of joints and sections and values of the coefficients
of the vertical distribution of the lateral load

FEMA 356: linear static 31

The failure mechanisms investigated are: flexure and shear failures at the end sections of all
beams and all columns; shear failure in all joints.
The flexural failures are governed by the following limit state equation:
1
M M M m
G C
= .
(29)
The values of the local ductility factor m are tabled in the Prestandard as function of the
Performance Level, of the Component Type, of the amount of transverse reinforcement and of
the levels of axial and shear forces acting on the members. The selected values are about 4 for
columns and about 7 for beams.
The shear failures are governed by the following limit state equation:
J C C C
V
V V
G C

=
3 2 1
1
,
(30)
where the coefficients
1
C ,
2
C ,
3
C , J , defined in section 2.1, are equal to 1.0, 1.0, 0.9 and 2.0,
respectively.
The minimum value of the multiplier is reported in Table 5, for each of the failure
mechanism investigated.
It is assumed that the collapse of the structure occurs for the smallest among those listed in
Table 5; which corresponds to the shear failure of joint 1 (see Figure 14). Thus, the elastic base
shear at failure is equal to 124.4 kN.
Table 5. Values of minimum multiplier for each limit states
Shear Moment
Mechanism
Beam Column Joint Beam Column
172.7 204.8 124.4 372.2 202.9
The (elastic) spectral acceleration at failure is calculated as:
g
W C C C C
V
S
m
E f
f a
508 . 0
3 2 1
1
,
=

=
=

where the values of the coefficient
1
C ,
2
C and
3
C , are the same as above and the coefficient
m
C is equal to 1.
The period of the structure from an eigenvalue analysis is equal to sec 57 . 0 =
el
T . Finally, the
failure peak ground acceleration is evaluated by:
( )
g S
T S
PGA
f a
el el a
f
177 . 0
875 . 2
508 . 0 1
,
,
= = = .

4.2 FEMA 356: Nonlinear static
The seismic capacity of the structure is assessed by carrying out a push-over analysis; the lateral
loads are increased until failure occurs in one of the monitored sections or joints. In this case the
format of the limit state equation is the same for force-controlled actions and deformation-
controlled actions, and it consists on a direct comparison between capacity and demand, this
latter being correctly provided by the analysis, in terms either of forces or of deformations. In
this application, a fibre element formulation is used to model both beams and columns, hence
use of local ductility factors or reduction coefficients, as in Eq. (2) and in Eq. (29), is not
necessary.
The flexural capacity is expressed in terms of plastic rotation,
c
. These are tabled in the
Prestandard as function of the ratio between the amount of transverse reinforcement and the
cross section area, of the level of the shear forces acting on the member, of the amount of the
transverse reinforcement and, for columns, of the level of the axial force acting on member.
Their values vary from 0.002 to 0.02 for the columns and from 0.025 to 0.05 for the beams; the
average values adopted are around 0.020 and 0.026 for columns and beams, respectively.
The shear capacities are evaluated using the same expressions as for the linear procedure.
The horizontal load is vertically distributed as shown in Figure 15: (1) a uniform distribution
and (2) a triangular distribution. They are applied in the two opposite directions, +X and X. A
total of four push-over analyses are performed.

Figure 15. Uniform and triangular vertical distributions of lateral loads

FEMA 356: Non linear static 33

The capacity/demand check on all sections and all joints is carried out at each step of the
analysis.
The results of the analysis are summarised in Table 6, where
U
is the displacement at failure
of the control node, which is by definition the node located at the centre of mass of the top
floor, and
U
V is the base shear at failure. The element and the type of failure are also indicated.
The worst condition among those investigated are cases number 3 and number 4, to which the
smaller ultimate displacement corresponds; the base shear capacity is about 50 kN.
The push-over curve corresponding to case number 3 is bi-linearised to evaluate the yielding
displacement and the effective stiffness of the frame whose values are:
m
Y
021 . 0 = , m kN K
eff
2908 = ;
where, as indicated by the Prestandard, the effective stiffness has been taken equal to the secant
stiffness calculated at a base shear force equal to 60% of the effective yield strength of the
structure.
Table 6. Collapse point for the four push-over analyses
Case
number
Lateral
load type
Dir.
U
[m]
U
V [kN] Mechanism
1 (1) X 0.070 51.6 Flexural failure of column 3
2 (1) -X 0.070 51.4 Flexural failure of column 2
3 (2) X 0.063 51.7 Flexural failure of column 2
4 (2) -X 0.063 51.5 Flexural failure of column 2

The period is evaluated taking into account the elongation effect through the expression:
sec 68 . 0 = =
eff
in
el eff
K
K
T T ,
where the initial stiffness, m kN K
in
4132 = , is the elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the
direction under consideration.
The spectral acceleration which causes the collapse of frame is:
g
g T C C C C
S
eff
u
f a
380 . 0
4
2
2
3 2 1 0
,
=

=

,
with
0
C ,
1
C ,
2
C and
3
C taken equal to 1.2, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.0 respectively. The corresponding
failure PGA is:
( )
g
T S
S
PGA
eff el a
f a
f
150 . 0
543 . 2
380 . 0
,
,
= = = .


It is noted that the displacement ductility capacity of the frame estimated from the push-over
analysis, i.e.:
0 . 3 =
=
y
u
sc
,
is not explicitly used in the evaluation of
f a
S
,
and hence of PGA
f
. This is a feature common to
all displacement-based approaches which adopt the equal displacement rule.
4.3 NZ: Simple lateral Mechanism Analysis
As already pointed out in section 2.2.3, the differences between the force-based and the
displacement-based procedures consist essentially in the way the demand on the structure is
calculated, i.e. either by using an acceleration spectrum or a displacement spectrum. In fact, the
evaluation of the structural capacity, which represents the main task of the assessment, is
common to both procedures. Accordingly, in the application instead of following the sequence
of steps outlined in the NZ document, for each of the two procedures, the evaluation of the
frame capacity has been carried out first, using both the SLM method and the push-over
analysis. The two approaches (i.e. force and displacement based) have then been separately
applied for the assessment of the PGA at failure.
The ultimate flexural capacities
U
M of members are evaluated by the standard theory [Park and
Paulay, 1975] assuming the maximum tensile strain of the reinforcement bars equal to 0.10, at a
difference with the FEMA value of 0.05. The columns capacity
U
M is calculated taking into
account the earthquake-induced axial forces, which are estimated through simplified
considerations based on global equilibrium between external and internal actions. Furthermore,
a reduction of
U
M due to the P effects is applied. The ultimate shear strengths,
CU
V , of
beams, columns and joints are evaluated by means of the expressions provided in the document.
The degradation of shear strength due to inelastic deformation associated to plastic-hinges is not
accounted for at this stage.
The identification of the most-likely failure mechanism is carried out as follows. First, the type
of failure at the end sections of beams and columns is assessed by comparing the shear demands
on members generated by the plastic hinge (flexural) mechanism,
fl
V , with the shear strengths
CU
V . The condition
fl CU
V V > is found to be satisfied at all members sections, therefore
flexural failures are expected.

NZ: Simple lateral Mechanism Analysis 35

The sway indexes are then calculated according to the Eq. (7). They are given in Table 7 for
both directions of application of the ground motion. Since the values are all larger than 0.85, a
failure mechanism of column-sway type at first floor is predicted.
Table 7. Sway Indexes
S
i
1
st
floor 2
nd
floor
X dir. 2.03 1.73
-X dir. 2.21 1.95

In this case the probable lateral load capacity can be simply evaluated by means of equilibrium
conditions: the maximum base shear
U
V is taken equal to the sum of the ultimate flexural
capacities at top and bottom of the columns of the first floor divided by the storey height. The
values of
U
V are given in Table 8 together with the probable base shear at yielding, calculated
using the yielding flexural capacities of members. The lower values of
U
V with respect to
Y
V
are due to the P effect.
Table 8. Base Shear at yielding and collapse
Base Shear
Y
V
U
V
X dir. 45.9 37.9
-X dir. 50.9 43.9

A simplified hand approach is also followed for the determination of the available (global)
displacement ductility of the frame. The (local) ductility capacities in curvature
c
are
evaluated first by means of sectional analysis. The expressions provided in the NZ document
might have been used alternatively. The values of
c
of columns at the first floor are given in
Table 9: the expected available curvature ductility is in the order of 10.
On the basis of the estimated
c
, the reduced shear strengths are evaluated by means of the
degradation law proposed by Priestley et al. included in the document. The values of the
reduced shear strengths
cr
V for the columns at the first floor are also given in Table 9. They are
compared with
fl
V : the condition
fl cr
V V > is satisfied. Thus, the reduction of the (local)
curvature ductility capacities is not necessary.


Table 9. Curvature ductility and shear demand for the four base-columns
Section 7 10 13 16
c
11.4 12.0 9.8 11.6
cr
V 17.2 18.4 18.1 16.9
fl
V 11.1 12.2 11.9 10.7

The (global) inelastic displacement capacity is evaluated as the sum of the yield and the plastic
components.
The frame yielding displacement is evaluated by the simplified relation Eq. (11) proposed by
Priestley:
mm h
h
l
e
b
b
y y
16 4371
330
1340
0018 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 =
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
The estimated displacement capacity of the frame is calculated using Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) as:
mm
p y u
55 39 16 = + = + = .
The global displacement ductility of the frame is equal to:
48 . 3 =
=
y
u
sc

The evaluation of the capacity of structure is thus completed; the corresponding bilinear
approximation of the force/displacement curve is shown in Figure 16.
The seismic performance is now determined by either a force or a displacement based approach.
In the force approach, the period is evaluated by an eigenvalue analysis, sec 57 . 0 =
el
T , and one
obtains for the peak ground acceleration at failure:
( )
g
M
V
T S
PGA
U
sc
el el a
f
204 . 0
75 . 27
9 . 37
48 . 3
875 . 2
1 1
,
= = = .

NZ: Simple lateral Mechanism Analysis 37

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
displacement [mm]
F
o
r
c
e
,

V

[
k
N
]
E
dx
E
sx

Figure 16. Resultant SDOF from mechanism analysis
0.169
0.204
0.586
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Period [sec]
S
a

[
g
]
elastic
design q=3.48

Figure 17. Force approach of SLM for the Pavia Frame
In the displacement approach, the characteristics of the substitute structure are:
sec 26 . 1 2 = =
eff
eff
k
M
T
( ) % 20 , = = mech failure f
sc eq
.
The PGA at failure is:
( )
g
T S
PGA
eff u
eq eff el a
f
161 . 0
,
1
2
,
= =

In the above expression, el a S , is the normalized elastic spectrum evaluated for the damping
coefficient
eq
using the reduction factor 63 . 0
5
10
=
+
=
eq
.

4.4 NZ: Nonlinear Static
The NSP procedure is intended as a refinement of the SLM analysis: in particular, the lateral
force capacity and the available displacement ductility of the structure are evaluated through a
push-over analysis instead of using the hand approach illustrated in the previous section.
The calculation of members capacities both in flexure and in shear is carried out as for the SLM
case. Therefore, no further comments are necessary here, except that the flexural failure is
evaluated in term of curvature deformations instead of bending moments. The ultimate
curvature capacities of the sections are derived from sectional analysis as before: for the
columns of the Pavia frame, the corresponding values vary between 0.2 and 0.3 mm
-1
.
The finite element model of the frame has been described in section 3.5. The two horizontal
loads distributions specified by FEMA have been applied also for this case, since no explicit
indication on this subject is provided in the NZ-document.
The four curves obtained by combining the two directions of application and the two vertical
distributions of horizontal loads are shown in Figure 18. The probable lateral load capacity is in
the order of 50 kN.
PAVIA Frame
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]
Triangular distribution
Uniform Distribution

Figure 18. Push-over curves for two types of distributions
To establish the available displacement ductility of the frame, in the NZ document it is
suggested to push the frame further, deforming as a mechanism, until the available ultimate
curvature is reached at the critical plastic hinge. The corresponding ultimate displacement is
read directly from curve.

NZ: Nonlinear static 39

In the case under consideration, the flexural capacity is exhausted at the bottom of the external
column 4, for the +X direction of application, and at the bottom of the opposite external column
2, for the -X direction of application.
The reductions of shear strengths due to local inelastic deformations are evaluated next, in the
same way as described in the previous section. It is noted, however, that the NZ document
requires to perform this check at failure, i.e. to use the values of the local inelastic deformation
and of the flexural shear demand

fl
V corresponding to the frame configuration at failure. If
the check is negative, the ultimate deformation is reduced to that pertaining to shear failure.
In two out of the four cases investigated, shear failures are observed well before the flexural
ultimate capacity is reached. The corresponding points in the force/displacement curve are
shown in Figure 19: it is noted, however, that the two shear failures occur when the lateral force
has practically reached the ultimate capacity, implying that this result is quite sensitive to
accuracy of the shear strength model used.
PAVIA Frame
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]
NZ shear failures
NZ flexural failures

Figure 19. Shear and flexural failures for the triangular distribution
The significant quantities derived from the push-over analyses are summarized in
Table 10: while the lateral load capacity is almost equivalent for all the cases, the reduction in
the available ductility due to shear failure in the two cases discussed above is considerable.
The values of the yielding displacement given in the table have been derived after the
bilinearisation of the push-over curves.


Table 10. Collapse point for the four analyses
Shape Dir.
U
V
Y

U

sc
mechanism
(1) X 50.0 0.023 0.034 1.52 Shear failure of joint 4
(1) -X 50.6 0.023 0.036 1.55 Shear failure of joint 1
(2) X 51.1 0.021 0.106 5.03 Flexural failure of section 10
(2) -X 50.9 0.021 0.101 4.91 Flexural failure of section 10

As for the SLM analysis, the failure PGA is calculated following both a force approach and a
displacement approach.
In the force approach, the peak ground acceleration at failure is:
( )
g
M
V
T S
PGA
U
sc
el el a
f
091 . 0
75 . 27
0 . 50
52 . 1
875 . 2
1 1
,
= = = .
0.261
0.091
0.171
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Period [sec]
S
a

[
g
]
elastic
design q=1.52

Figure 20. Design and elastic spectra for PGA at failure
In the displacement approach, the characteristics of the substitute structure are:
sec 866 . 0 2 = =
eff
eff
k
M
T
where m kN k
eff
/ 1460
034 . 0
0 . 50
= = and % 8 . 5 02 . 0
1
1 2 . 0 = +
(
(
=
sc
eq
.
The PGA at failure is:
( )
g
T S
PGA
eff u
eq eff el a
f
096 . 0
,
1
2
,
= =

In the above expression,
el a
S
,
is the normalized elastic spectrum evaluated for the damping
coefficient
eq
using the reduction factor 96 . 0 = .

4.5 BDPA: 3
rd
level
The first step in the application of the Japanese procedure consists in the classification of the
vertical elements into the eight classes available. In the Pavia frame, all the vertical elements are
columns having the same section and reinforcement layout. To establish the type of failure of
each column, their flexure and shear strengths are calculated, at all floors, by means of the
expressions provided in the guidelines. From the equilibrium of the ultimate bending moment,
the shear forces on members associated with a plastic-hinges (flexural) mechanism are derived
and compared with the ultimate shear. It results that all the columns at all floors fail in flexure,
i.e.
fl CU
V V > .
The possibility of beams failure is investigated by means of the joint-indexes, which are
calculated with the expressions in Eq. (18). Values greater than 1 are found at all nodes. Thus, a
strong-beam/weak-column type of failure mechanism is expected for the Pavia frame. It is
concluded that all the vertical elements belong to class m: columns whose failure mechanism is
flexural yielding.
In this case, the expression of the basic structural performance index defined in Eq. (17) reduces
to:
( )

=
=
nc
j
i
Uj j
i
V q E
1
0
min ,
(31)
where
i
Uj
V is the shear capacity of column j at floor i , nc is the number of columns at that floor
and
j
q is the ductility index of column j . The latter depends on the coefficient defined in
Eq. (20), which for the case under examination is the same for all columns at all floors.
The floor shear resistance is evaluated by the expression:
( )

=
=
nc
j
i
Uj j
i i
c
V q T S V
1
0
min ,
(32)
For the Pavia frame the two indexes
i
S
0
and T are both equal to 1 because the frame has a
regular layout and it is a new construction, i.e. the materials are not deteriorated. The values
of
i
c
V are given in Table 11.
According to Eq. (23), the failure spectral acceleration at floor i is calculated as:
i
i
i
a
k m
E
S
=
0
,
(33)


The values of
i
a
S are given in Table 11. The collapse of the frame occurs for the smallest
i
a
S ,
which is equal to 0.477g.
In Eq. (33) the coefficients
i
k are equal to 0.86, 1.07 and 1.28 respectively for the first, the
second and the third floor.
Table 11. Results of the 3
rd
level procedure for the three different floors
Storey Mechanism q V
u
[kN] E
0
[kN] S
a
[g]
1 Col. Flexural 3.2 50.5 151.4 0.649
2 Col. Flexural 3.2 43.8 140.2 0.775
3 Col. Flexural 3.2 37.0 118.6 1.402

The PGA is given by the expression in Eq. (24). The elastic period, evaluated from the
eigenvalue analysis is equal to: sec 57 . 0 =
el
T . The factor ( )
el a
T S 1 is equal to 2.875. Finally,
the peak ground acceleration at failure is equal to 0.226g.

5 COMPARISONS
The results of the applications of the assessment procedures to the three case studies are
illustrated and critically compared hereafter. The PGA values at failure estimated by the four
basic procedures and by the three advanced procedures are separately summarised in Figure
21, for the case of the Pavia frame, and in Figure 22, for the case of the Icons frame.
Pavia Frame: Basic-Procedures
0.204
0.161
0.177
0.226
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
NZSEEMA
Force
NZSEEMA
Disp
FEMA LSP BDPA
P
G
A

[
g
]
Pushover Procedures
0.091
0.096
0.150
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
NZSEE
NPA Force
NZSEE
NPA Disp
FEMA NSP

Figure 21. Failure PGA for the Pavia frame

It is first observed that the variation of the PGAs with the different procedures is qualitatively
similar for both the Pavia and the Icons frames. The basic procedures yield values whose
scatter is of the order of 20% from the average value; the Japanese procedure provides the
highest values, while the NZ displacement-based approach the lowest. The results of the
FEMA356 are placed in between the two. This scatter is not surprising given the quite large
diversity of the three approaches.

44 Chapter 5. Comparisons

Icons Frame - Basic-Procedures
0.229
0.209
0.253
0.298
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
NZSEEMA
Force
NZSEEMA
Disp
FEMA LSP BDPA
P
G
A

[
g
]
Pushover Procedures
0.113
0.191
0.140
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
NZSEE
NPA Force
NZSEE
NPA Disp
FEMA
NSP

Figure 22. Failure PGA for the Icons frame
The variation of failure PGAs which results from the two push-over procedures is, on the
contrary, unexpected. Since the model of the frames and the external action applied are the
same, the difference in the results has to be related either to the capacities of members or to the
way the push-over curve is related to the PGA at failure. The points on the push-over curves
which correspond to the exhaustion of capacity of the indicated member are shown in Figure 23
and Figure 24.
PAVIA Frame
shear joint 4
shear joint 1
f lexure col 4
f lexure col 4
f lex col 3
f lex col 2
flex col 2
f lex col 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]
NZ failures
FEMA failures

Figure 23. Collapse points of push-over procedures for Pavia frame

45

ICONS Frame
f lexure col 2
f lexure col 5
shear col 2
shear joint 8
shear joint 4
shear col 2
shear joint 4
shear joint 8
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement [m]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[
k
N
]
NZ failures
FEMA failures

Figure 24. Collapse points of push-over procedures for Icons frame
It is noted that the NZ procedure predicts a premature shear failure of joints in both Pavia and
Icons frames. The shear capacities of the joints, calculated according to the expressions included
in the NZ and FEMA documents, are compared in Figure 25. It is noted that for the majority of
the joints the NZ expressions yield lower values than the ones from the FEMA356 and that the
differences between the values are especially larger for the weakest (i.e. critical) joints. The
possibility of joint failure is not considered by the Japanese standard since joints are typically
over-designed in this Country [FIB 2003].
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Pavia Frame
Elements
J
o
i
n
t

S
h
e
a
r

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

[
k
N
]
joints 1
st
floor joints 2
nd
floor joints 3
rd
floor
FEMA
NZ
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Icons Frame
Elements
J
o
i
n
t

S
h
e
a
r

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

[
k
N
]
joints 1
st
floor joints 2
nd
floor joints 3
rd
floor joints 4
th
floor
FEMA
NZ

Figure 25. Comparison of shear capacities of joints for the Pavia and Icons frames
Analogous results are also found if the shear capacities of beams and columns are compared, as
shown in Figure 26. In this figure the estimates from the Japanese standard are also available,
which are general in better agreement with those of FEMA 356.


As a general comment, the comparison of the shear capacities provided by the three documents
shows quite significant differences, especially for column shear capacity due to the different
treatment of the contribution of the axial force. These differences have a modest influence on
the value of the ultimate base shear, but they determine large differences in the ultimate
deformation capacities, as shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24, and these in turn are transferred
into the values of the PGA at failure.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pavia Frame
Elements
S
h
e
a
r

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

[
k
N
]
beams col. 1
st
floor col. 2
nd
floor col. 3
rd
floor
FEMA
NZ
JAP
0 5 10 15 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Icons Frame
Elements
S
h
e
a
r

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

[
k
N
]
beams col. 1
st
floor col. 2
nd
floor col. 3
rd
floor col. 4
th
floor
FEMA
NZ
JAP

Figure 26. Comparison of shear capacities of beams and columns for the Pavia and Icons frames
For what concerns the ultimate flexural capacities, there also the three documents yield
estimates differing considerably among them, with the FEMA 356 being the more conservative.
Were it not for the fact that in most cases failures are due to shear, discrepancies on the flexural
capacities would have had a similar effect to that of shear variability.
The question is now addressed of the passage from a given push-over curve to the
corresponding PGA value at failure, as a possible source of differences among the final results.
The case of Pavia is taken as example (see Figure 27).
Displacement
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r
Fy
50kN
y
0.027m y

Figure 27. Equivalent SDOF

47

The force-based NZ procedure, as adopted in this application, makes use of the two quantities:
el
T T = and ( )
M
F
T S
y
el a

=

from which
( )
( ) ( )
el
el a
T k
T S
PGA

=
15 . 1 5 . 2
,
where the factor ( ) T k relates the spectral acceleration at T to the PGA; it is equal to 1,
T
T
C

and
2
T
T T
C D

for
C
T T < ,
D
T T < and
D
T T > , respectively .
It is noted that:
the equal displacement rule is used;

el
T is obtained from an elastic analysis;
for
C el
T T the determination of PGA is insensitive to the value of
el
T
The displacement-based NZ procedure makes use of the two quantities:
y
y
F
M
T

= 2 and ( ) ( )
y d
T S = ,
from which
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
M
F
M
F
T S T S
y
y
y
y
d a
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

= =

1
, ,
2
and
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) T k
T S
PGA
a

=

15 . 1 5 . 2
,
.
It is noted that:
T is the period corresponding to the secant-to-ultimate displacement stiffness;
the spectral acceleration at failure is constant, independent from ;
the value of PGA depends on through and T (for
C
T T > ).
The NLS of FEMA 356 makes use of the two quantities:
( ) 1 > =
el
T T and ( )
y d
T S =
from which ( )

=
i
i
y
a
C
T S

2
and
( )
( ) ( ) T k
T S
PGA
a

=
15 . 1 5 . 2
.
It is noted that:
a modified equal displacement rule is adopted;
the approach is the closet one to the standard use of the push-over analysis.
The value of PGA at failure as function of the ductility factor for the Pavia frame is shown in
Figure 28. Its observed that the dependence of PGA on is linear for both the NZ-force and
the FEMA 356, that the ratio between the ordinates of the two curves is of the order of 1.2 and


remains constant for increasing values of . The comparison between the curves related to the
two NZ approach, shows instead that this ratio is not constant and grows quite large for higher
ductility levels. For example for 4 = is about 1.4.
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
P
e
a
k

g
r
o
u
n
d

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
Ductility factor
NZ Force
NZ Disp
FEMA NSP

Figure 28. PGAs for different ductility levels
The comparison between the basic and the push-over procedures shows that the former yield
higher values of PGAs than the latter. While the differences between the FEMA356 basic and
the FEMA356 push-over are reasonably small, which demonstrates a good calibrations of the
modifiers coefficients m and J used in the basic procedure, a large variation is observed
between the NZ basic and the NZ push-over.
The failure mechanisms identified by the different procedures are summarised in Table 12,
where one can appreciate in a different form the already noted discrepancies.
Table 12. Failure mechanism according to the different procedures
New Zealand Code FEMA 356
SLM NPA LSP NSP
Pavia Column-Sway Joint-Shear Joint-Shear Column-Moment
Icons Beam-Sway Joint-Shear Column-Shear Column-Moment

The case of the assessment of the SPEAR building is now examined. Only the basic
procedures have been applied here. The two principal directions have been considered
separately in the assessment of the building.

49

Application of the NZ SLM procedure requires some assumptions since the documents deals
explicitly with isolated frames only. For each direction, three frames have been identified and
investigated independently (see Figure 29). The lateral capacity of the whole building is
obtained as the sum of the capacity of the three frames, while the displacement and ductility
capacity is given by the smallest among those of the single frames.

Figure 29. Resisting frames of SPEAR structure
A failure PGAs is established for each principal direction, and the smallest among the two
gives the failure PGA of the building.
The results are shown in the Figure 30. The estimates of the four procedures are reasonably
close, considering the complexity of the structure.
Spear Building - Basic-Procedures
0.118
0.139
0.104
0.133
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
NZSEEMA
Force
NZSEE MA
Disp
FEMA LSP BDPA
P
G
A

[
g
]

Figure 30: Failure PGA for the 3D Spear building

6 CONCLUSIONS
The limited scope of the investigation made does not allow conclusions of general validity to be
drawn concerning the effectiveness and the accuracy of the examined documents. As indicated
in the introduction, the main purpose of the study was that of checking the practical
applicability of the methods, the relative ease of use, and of course the degree of agreement on
the results. The observed diversity of the various approaches in dealing with the same problem
is in itself a sign that the matter of assessing the seismic resistance of existing buildings is still a
work in progress, and there are no indications at present of a trend towards an harmonised
treatment of this problem. Again from the small number of cases examined is not possible to
systematically trace the differences in the results produced by the different approaches to either
the theoretical framework on which they are based or on the specific expressions used for
evaluating the capacities of the critical members and mechanisms. It is observed, however, that
large differences exist in the way the shear capacities of members and joints are evaluated, and
this has been a decisive factor in some cases for the determination of the ultimate capacity of the
entire building. It is widely recognised that the current knowledge on cyclic shear capacity of
non-seismically detailed members is inadequate, so it is small wonder that capacity expressions
adopted by various assessment documents are different, and that by consequence different
global results are obtained, since lack of ductility due to premature shear failure is possibly the
most typical critical deficiency of the old designs. It is noted that this state of relative ignorance
on cyclic shear capacity is not relevant for design of new buildings only due to the severe
provisions that are in place to exclude all failures of brittle nature. Even if this source of
discrepancy of the results from the various approaches were eliminated (an exercise that has
been not carried out), the present exploration indicates that significant differences would
remain, linked to the criterions used to relate the capacity curve to the response spectrum (when
the push-over approach is adopted), or to the use of elastic analysis combined with local

52 Chapter 6. Conclusions

ductility factor, as in FEMA, instead of the global mechanism analysis of NZ. A good number
of these latter differences, however, are of conceptual nature, and would show up equally if the
concepts were applied for the design of new structures.

7 REFERENCES
ACI 318-95/318R-95 [1995] American Concrete Institute , Building Code Requirement for
Reinforced Concrete, Detroit, Michigan.
ASCE, [2002] American Society of Civil Engineers for Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Prestandard for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, (FEMA Report 356),
Reston, Va.
ATC [1997a] Applied Technology Council for Building Seismic Safety Council and Federal
Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, (FEMA Report 273), Washington, D.C.
ATC [1997b] Applied Technology Council for Building Seismic Safety Council and Federal
Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Commentary on the guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, (FEMA Report 274), Washington, D.C.
BSSC [1999] Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Case studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, (FEMA Report 343), Washington, D.C.
Calvi G. M., Magenes G. and Pampanin S. [2001] Experimental study on the seismic response
of R.C. frame designed for gravity loads only, Proc. of the 10
th
Italian National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering (ANIDIS), Potenza-Matera, Italia
CEN [2003] Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resisitance, Draft European Standard prEN 1998-1:2003, Brussels, B.
Fardis M.N. [2002] Design of an irregular building for the SPEAR project, University of Patras
fib [2003] Federation International du Beton, Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced
concrete buildings, Bulletin 24, Section 3

54 Chapter 7. References

JBDPA [1977], Japanese Building Disaster Prevention Association, National Standard for
Evaluation of Seismic Capacity of existing reinforced concrete building, Japan (revised in
1990).
Mander J.B., Priestley M. J. N. and Park R. [1988a] Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for
Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Mander J.B., Priestley M. J. N. and Park R. [1988b] Observed Stress-Strain Behaviour of
Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114(8), 1826-1849.
McKenna F. [1997] Object-Oriented Finite Element Programming: Framework for Analysis,
Algorithms, and Parallel Computing, Ph.D. Thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Negro P., Mola E., Molina J.F., Magonette G.M. [2004] Full-scale bi-directional PsD testing of
a torsionally-unbalanced three-storey non-seismic RC frames, Proc. of the 13
th
World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 968.
NZNSEE [1996] New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, The Assessment
and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Earthquake Risk Buildings, Draft for
general release.
NZNSEE [2002] New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, The Assessment
and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Earthquake Risk Buildings, Draft
prepared for the NZ Building Industry Authority.
Otani S. [2000] Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,
Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokio, Series B, Vol XLVII, pp. 2-28.
Pampanin S., Calvi G. M., Moratti, M. [2002] Seismic behaviour of R.C. beam-column joints
designed for gravity loads, Proc. of the 12
th
European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London, UK, Elsevier Science Ltd.. Paper no. 726
Panagiotakos T.B., Fardis M.N. [2001] Deformation of Reinforced Concrete Members at
Yielding, ACI Structural Journal, Technical Paper no. 98-S13
Park R. and Paulay T. [1975] Reinforced Concrete Structures (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York).
Pinto A., Verzelletti G., Molina J., Varum H., Pinho R. and Coelho E. [2002] Pseudo-dynamic
tests on non-seismic resisting RC frames (bare and selective retrofit frames), EUR Report
20244

55

Priestley M. J. N., Verma R. and Xiao Y. [1994] Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120(8): 2310-29.
Priestley M. J. N. [1995] Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced
concrete columns, Proc. of Pacific Conference on Earthquake Eng., 2:225-44, Melbourne.
Priestley M. J. N., Seble F. and Calvi G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges (John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).
Shibata A. and Sozen M. [1976] Substitute-Structure Method for Seismic Design in R.C.,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 102(1), 1-18.
SNZ [1976] Standard New Zealand, General Structural Design and Design Loadings for
Buildings, NZS 4203:1976, Standards New Zealand.
Taucer F., Spacone E. and Filippou F. C. [1991] A Fiber Beam-Column Element for Seismic
Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Earthquake Eng. Research,
University of California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/17.

APPENDIX A: EC8 SPECTRA
In the EC8, the elastic response spectrum ( ) T S
e
and the design response spectrum ( ) T S
d
,
obtained from elastic spectrum scaling by the behaviour factor q , for the horizontal
components are defined by the following expressions:
Elastic Spectrum Design Spectrum
B
T T 0 : ( ) ( )
(
+ = 1 5 . 2 1
B
g e
T
T
S a T S ( )
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
5 . 2
1
q T
T
S a T S
B
g d
C B
T T T :
( ) 5 . 2 = S a T S
g e
( )
q
S a T S
g d
5 . 2
=
D C
T T T : ( )
(
=
T
T
S a T S
C
g e
5 . 2 ( )
(
=
T
T
q
S a T S
C
g d
5 . 2

T T
D
: ( )
(

=
2
5 . 2
T
T T
S a T S
D C
g e
( )
(

=
2
5 . 2
T
T T
q
S a T S
D C
g d

where
gR I g
a k a = ,
I
is the importance factor,
gR
a is the reference peak ground
acceleration.
The values of the period
B
T ,
C
T and
D
T and the soil factor S describing the shape of the
elastic response spectrum depend on ground type and on the type of earthquake; the EC8, infact,
considers two type of spectrum for each category of soil: type 1, for large magnitude, and type
2, for magnitude lesser than 5.5.
The value of damping correction factor is determined by the expression: 55 . 0
5
10
+
=
.

58 Appendix A. EC8 spectra

The displacement spectrum is simply obtained from the elastic spectrum by:
( )
( )
2
,
,
T S
T
e
e
= .
As reported before, in the applications we have referred to the spectrum Type 1 for the soil
category C, for which 15 . 1 = S , 2 . 0 =
B
T , 6 . 0 =
C
T and 0 . 2 =
D
T . The next two figures shows
the acceleration spectrum and the displacement spectrum for different values of damping
coefficient and an unit acceleration, g a
gR
1 = .
Soil C, Type 1
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Period [sec]
a
g

[
g
]
Se 5%
Se 15%
Se 25%
Se 35%

Figure 31: EC8 acceleration spectrum Type 1, soil C
Soil C, Type 1
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Period [sec]
d

[
m
]
Sdisp 5%
Sdisp 15%
Sdisp 25%
Sdisp 35%

Figure 32: EC8 displacement spectrum Type 1, soil C

APPENDIX B: MATERIALS MODELS
The model of the materials employed in the non linear analyses are described below.
A.1 Concrete
The main factor influencing the behaviour of concrete is lateral confinement. The term
confinement refers the influence that lateral reinforcement exercises on concrete, which leads to
a modification of the compression stress state from uniaxial to multiaxial. The presence of the
confinement has a favourable effect on the strength, as well on the ductility of concrete.
In conjunction with longitudinal reinforcement, close-spaced transverse reinforcement acts to
restrain the lateral expansion of the concrete that accompanies the onset of crushing,
maintaining the integrity of the core concrete, and enabling higher compression stresses, and
more important, much higher compression strains to be sustained by the compression zone
before failure occurs.
For a unconfined element, the development of cracks produces an increase of volume and
consequently a rapid decrease of the strength; instead for a confined element the volumetric
expansion is prevented by the transversal reinforcement that induces a condition of tri-axial
compression.
As shown in Figure 33 the presence of the lateral reinforcement modifies almost the descending
branch of stress-strain relationship.

The principals effects of the confinement are:
a) to increase the compression strength of concrete, which compensates for possible
losses, caused by spalling, i.e. failure of the cover concrete in a element, which occurs
whenever compressive strains in the cover exceed about % 4 . 0 ;

60 Appendix B. Materials models

b) to reduce the slope of the descending branch of the
c c
curve, therefore to increase
the maximum usable strain
cu
to value much higher than the % 35 . 0 accepted by code
for flexural design; in other words the ductility is increased by confinement.
This second point is the most important effect of the transverse reinforcement and it constitutes
the key to satisfy the requirements of modern seismic codes regarding local ductility.
Figure 33: Stress strain relationship for different level of lateral confinement

The model of Mander, adopted in this study, estimates the effect of the confinement by:
r
cc
c
x r
xr f
f
+
=
1
'
,
where
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
'
0
'
'
0
'
'
0
'
2
94 . 7
1 254 . 2 254 . 1
c
l
c
l
c cc
f
f
f
f
f f is the compressive strength of confined
concrete,
'
0 c
f is the unconfined compressive strength,
e l l
k f f =
'
is the effective lateral
confining stresses,
( ) c b s
A
k
w
w
x e
2
75 . 0 75 . 0

= = for rectangular sections,
yw l
f f = ,
cc
c
x
= ,
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 1 5 1 002 . 0
'
'
c
cc
cc
f
f
,
sec
E E
E
r
c
c
= ,
0
5000
c c
f E = (in MPa),
cc
cc
f
E
'
sec
= ,
yh
f and
su
are the yielding stress and the ultimate deformation of the lateral reinforcement and
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) c B c H s
c B c H A
w
s
2 2
2 2 2

+
= is the volumetric ratio of confining steel.
The ultimate strain was evaluated by the relationship proposed in the fib bulletin (2003, Seismic
assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings) for old-type componenets:
01 . 0
6 . 0
004 . 0
'

+ =
cc
su yh s
cu
f
f
.

0
5
10
15
20
0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01
epsilon
f
c

[
N
/
m
m
2
]

Figure 34: Stress strain relationship of the concrete
A.2 Steel
A simple bilinear model has been used for the steel.
The ratio between the plastic and the elastic branches and the ultimate strain are respectively
equal to 0.002 and 0.1.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
epsilon
f

[
N
/
m
m
2
]

Figure 35: Stress strain relationship of the steel

APPENDIX C: EARTHQUAKE INDUCED AXIAL FORCES
In the Simplified lateral Mechanism Analysis the earthquake induced axial forces
1
have been
evaluated by the shear forces trasmitted the moment capacities of the beam.
The general expressions for the exteriors (1 at left, 2 at right) and the interiors (3) columns are:
1)
b
brC blC
Edx
l
M M
N
+
+
= ,
b
brC blC
Esx
l
M M
N
+
+
= ,
2)
b
brC blC
Edx
l
M M
N
+
+
= ,
b
brC blC
Esx
l
M M
N
+
+
= ,
3)
( ) ( )
b
rigth brC blC
b
left brC blC
Edx
l
M M
l
M M
N
+ +
+
+
+ = ,
( ) ( )
b
right brC blC
b
left brC blC
Esx
l
M M
l
M M
N
+ +
+
+
+
= ,
where dx and sx denote the direction of the seismic action,
blC
M and
brC
M are the flexural
(positive/negative) capacities at node i and j of the beam, respectively.

Frame Moments Shear Seismic Load

1
Positive is compression and negative is tension

Dissertation2003 Lupoi

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dissertation2003 Lupoi

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Istituto Universitario

di Studi Superiori di Pavia

and of the flexural shear demand

Вам также может понравиться