PERFORMANCE OF RC FRAME BUILDINGS

DESIGNED FOR ALTERNATIVE DUCTILITY CLASSES

ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 8 (FINAL VERSION, 2003)
T.B. PANAGIOTAKOS & M.N. FARDIS
1
ABSTRACT
For the first time after the finalization of the European Norm for seismic design of buildings (Eurocode 8
- EC8), the performance of RC buildings designed with this code is ealuated through s!stematic
nonlinear anal!ses" RC frames with #, 8 or $% stories are designed for a &'( of )"%g or )"#g and to one of
the three alternatie ductilit! classes in EC8" *he performance of the alternatie designs under the life-
safet! (#+, !ear) and the damage limitation (-, !ear) earth.ua/es is ealuated through nonlinear seismic
response anal!ses" *he large difference in material .uantities and detailing of the alternatie designs does
not translate into large differences in performance" 0esign for either 0uctilit! Class 1igh (1) or 2edium
(2) of EC8 is much more cost-effectie than for 0uctilit! Class 3ow (3), een in moderate seismicit!"
1. INTRODUCTION
4n the %))5 ersion of the European Norm for seismic design (Eurocode 8, EC8)
design of RC buildings ma! be according to one of three alternatie 0uctilit! Classes6 High (H),
Medium (M) or Low (L)" For 0C 2 and 1 frames EC8 re.uires6 (a) strong column-wea/
beam design (ia capacit! design of columns with an oerstrength factor of $"# on beam
strengths)7 (b) capacit! design of all members against pre-emptie shear failure7 and (c) detailing
of all members for ductilit!" 0etailing rules in 0C 1 are more stringent than in 0C 2"
&roportioning and detailing for 0C 3 is that of structures not designed for earth.ua/e resistance"
*he force-reduction factors for 0C 1, 2 or 3 are e.ual to #",aR, 5aR and $",, respectiel!,
(where aR accounts for s!stem redundanc! and oerstrength and in multistor! frames ma! be
ta/en e.ual to a default alue of $"5) and are much lower than the R-factors of 89 codes for
9pecial, 4ntermediate or :rdinar! RC frames, respectiel!, although detailing and proportioning
re.uirements are similar" 4n this paper frames designed for a PGA of 0!g or 0"g according
to the 5 alternatie 0uctilit! Classes of EC8 are ealuated ia nonlinear time-histor! anal!ses at
the collapse-preention and the damage-limitation performance leels under the #+,-!ear and the
-,-!ear earth.ua/es, respectiel!"
2. DESIGN OF FRAMES TO EUROCODE 8 (DC L, M, H)
$
Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering University of Patras, Patras, GREECE
Email: fardisupatras!gr
$
RC frames with #, 8, or $% stories of 5m height are designed to the final (%))5) ersions of the
European structural design standards (Eurocode % for concrete buildings and Eurocode 8 for
earth.ua/e resistant buildings), for one of the three alternatie 0uctilit! Classes (0C 1, 2 or 3),
a #+,!r &'( of either )"%g or )"#g and an elastic response spectrum with an amplification factor
of %", on &'( up to a period of )";sec, falling as $<* thereafter" Each frame has three ,m ba!s in
both horizontal directions" *he slab is )"$, m thic/ and in design contributes to the beam moment
of inertia with an effectie flange width according to Eurocode %" 4n addition to self-weight, a
distributed dead load of % /N<m
%
for floor-finishes and partitions and a lie load with nominal
alue of $", /N<m
%
is considered" 4n the combination of grait! loads, nominal dead and lie loads
are multiplied with load factors of $"5, and $",, respectiel!" 4n the seismic load combination,
dead and lie loads enter with the nominal alue or 5)= of the nominal alue, respectiel!"
Concrete with nominal c!lindrical strength f
c#
> 5)2&a and fairl! ductile *empcore steel with
nominal !ield stress f
$#
> ,))2&a, are used" Columns are s.uare with the same side length hc in all
stories, but are smaller in the two e?terior columns so that their uncrac/ed gross-section stiffness
is about half that of the interior ones (so that elastic seismic chord rotation demands at the two
beam ends of e?terior ba!s are about e.ual)" @eams hae the same web width (bw > )"5m for the
)"%g design &'(, bw > )"5,m for the )"#g &'() in all stories, but different depth, hb"
0esign is based on the results of linear static anal!sis for heightwise linearl! distributed lateral
forces" (s such a procedure s!stematicall! oerestimates the results of a modal response spectrum
anal!sis, EC8 allows multipl!ing anal!sis results b! )"8," 3ateral forces are deried from the
design spectrum at the fundamental period of the building estimated on the basis of the Ra!leigh
.uotient and ,)= of uncrac/ed gross section stiffness" *orsion due to accidental eccentricit! and
simultaneous horizontal components of the earth.ua/e (according to the )"56$ rule) are neglected
in design, as the seismic response anal!ses for the ealuation of the performance in 9ections 5 and
# ta/e place in %0, under one horizontal component and without accidental eccentricit!" *he
columns of the bottom stor! are assumed fi?ed at grade leel" *he finite size of beam-column
Aoints is considered, but Aoints are assumed to be rigid" &-B effects are neglected" @eam grait!
loads are computed on the basis of beam tributar! areas in the two-wa! s.uare slab s!stem"
(t a preliminar! design stage the uniform column depths hc and the beam depths hbi at each stor!
are tailored to the interstore! drift ratio limitation of )",= (for brittle non-structural infills) for the
%
-,-!ear damage limitation earth.ua/e, ta/en as ,)= of the #+,-!ear one" 9mall initial member
sizes are assumed7 then the (constant throughout the building) column depth hc is chosen to fulfil
the )",= drift limit at the stor! with the smallest interstore! drift among those iolating the limit"
4n other stories beam depth is increased until the )",= drift limitation in the stor! is fulfilled" 4n
proportioning afterwards the beam reinforcement for the 839 for bending on the basis of the
linear anal!sis results of the so-sized frame, beam depths in a few stories ma! increase further, to
aoid iolation of the ma?imum top steel ratio at the supports" *he anal!sis is repeated for
conformit! of the fundamental period and of other results to the final member sizes"
*able $ lists the column sizes and the a?ial load ratio, d > N<(cfcd, at the base of the column under
the grait! loads acting simultaneousl! with the design earth.ua/e" Final beam depths, hb, top and
bottom beam reinforcement ratios, and C (aerage at the two ends) and column total steel ratio
c for each stor!, are gien in Figures $ to 5" 4n 8- or $%-stor! frames designed for a &'( of )"#g,
it was not feasible to hae the same column size for 0C 3 as for 0C 2 or 1" 4n the $%-stor!
frames with design &'( of )"%g, /eeping column size the same for 0C 3 as in 2 and 1, gies
oersized columns for 0C 2 and 1 and e?cessie beam reinforcement ratios for 0C 3"
Table 1: Column sizes and normalized axial load:
d
= N/A
c
f
cd
at base
due to gravity loads
@uilding 0esign 0esign &'( 6 )"%)g 0esign &'( 6 )"#)g
E?terior columns 4nterior columns E?terior columns 4nterior columns
hc (m) Dd hc (m) Dd hc (m) Dd hc (m) Dd
#-stor! (ll designs )"#, )"),$ )",, )")+8 )",, )")++ )";, )"$%%
8-stor! 0C 3 )",, )")+, )";, )"$$, )"+, )")-8 )"-) )"$58
0C 2 or 1 )",, )")+, )";, )"$$, )",, )"$,5 )";, )"%#)
$%-stor! 0C 3 )"8, )");, $")) )")8; $")) )"$$) $"%) )"$58
0C 2 or 1 )"8, )");, $")) )")8; )";) )"$-8 )"+) )"5$#
*able % lists the material .uantities re.uired for one frame in the $8 designs" 4t is clear from the
re.uired beam depths in the frames designed for a &'( of )"#g, or from the re.uired beam
reinforcement in those designed for a &'( of )"%g, that design for strength alone (for 0C 3) is
much less cost-effectie than design for ductilit! (for 0C 2 or 1) and is not a iable option for
medium-high rise frames, een for moderate seismicit! (&'( of )"%g) and<or low-rise frames"
5
Tab! 2" C#$%&!'! (#)*! (*
+
) a$, -'!! .!/01' (') 2!& 3&a*!, /$%),/$0 '&a$-(!&-! b!a*-
@uilding 0esign &'( 6 )"%)g 0esign &'( 6 )"#)g
and 0C @eams Columns *otal @eams Columns *otal
concrete steel concrete steel concrete steel concrete steel concrete steel concrete steel
3 $;"+; %"8$ $%"$% $"+, %8"88 #",; %%";# %"%# $+"#) %"+; #)")# ,"))
#-stor! 2 $+";# $"%% $%"$% $";5 %-"+; %"8, %)",8 $"8; $+"#) %"#5 5+"-8 #"%-
1 $;"+; $"$+ $%"$% $"+- %8"88 %"-, %%";# $"5- $+"#) %"#+ #)")# 5"8;
3 ##",# -"%, 5#"8) ,",, +-"5# $#"8) ,+"$$ 8")8 ;,"88 +"+8 $%%"-- $,"8;
8-stor! 2 5+"#- #"-$ 5#"8) #"5$ +%"%- -"%5 #,"%8 ;"$5 5#"8) ,"%) 8)")8 $$"5%
1 5+")# 5";8 5#"8) #"85 +$"8# 8",% #$";+ #",) 5#"8) #"+5 +;"#+ -"%#
3 +,"#$ %$")$ $%#")% +"8; $--"#5 %8"8+ -#"$, %%"$$ $+,";8 $8";+ %;-"85 #)"+8
$%-stor! 2 +#")- $)")$ $%#")% ;";5 $-8"$$ $;";# ;;"5+ $$",; ;$"5- -",; $%+"+; %$"$%
1 +,"#$ ;";; $%#")% 8"5- $--"#5 $,")# ;+"#) 8"+5 ;$"%) 8"8# $%8";) $+",8
(a) (b)
F/0)&! 1" B!a* ,!2'1 (1b), b!a* '#2 () a$, b#''#* (4) &!/$3#&%!*!$' &a'/# a$, %#)*$
'#'a &!/$3#&%!*!$' &a'/# (%) /$ 56-'#&7 3&a*!- 3#& DC L ('#2), M (*/,,!) #& H (b#''#*).
D!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 (b) 8.50. C#-!, %/&%!-" !:'!&/#& a$, #2!$ %/&%!-" /$'!&/#& *!*b!&-.
#
(a) (b)
F/0)&! 2" B!a* ,!2'1 (1b), b!a* '#2 () a$, b#''#* (4) &!/$3#&%!*!$' &a'/# a$, %#)*$
'#'a &!/$3#&%!*!$' &a'/# (%) /$ 86-'#&7 3&a*!- 3#& DC L ('#2), M (*/,,!) #& H (b#''#*).
D!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 (b) 8.50. C#-!, %/&%!-" !:'!&/#& a$, #2!$ %/&%!-" /$'!&/#& *!*b!&-.
(a) (b)
Figure 3: eam de!t" #"
b
$% beam to! #$ and bottom #&$
reinforcement ratio and column total reinforcement ratio #
c
$ in 1'(
story frames for )C * #to!$% + #middle$ or , #bottom$- )esign ./A:
#a$ 0-'g1 #b$ 0-2g- Closed circles: exterior and o!en circles: interior
members-
+. PERFORMANCE E;ALUATION UNDER THE DESIGN (5<=6>R) EARTH?UAKE
2ember deformation demands due to the design (#+, !r") earth.ua/e are estimated ia nonlinear
d!namic anal!sis of the response to a set of seen motions emulating historic records from
9outhern Europe or California, scaled to the design &'( of )"%g or )"#g" *hese motions are
,
modified to conform to the ,=-damped elastic response spectrum used for the design"
2ean alues of material strengths6 f!m > $"$,f!/ > ,+,2&a, fcm > fc/E8 > 582&a are used in the
nonlinear anal!sis and in the ealuation of member performance from it" ( point-hinge model is
used for members" *he !ield moment of the point-hinge is e.ual to the ultimate moment of the
section, for the instantaneous alue of the a?ial force, as this changes during the time-histor!
anal!sis" ( simplified *a/eda model is used for the moment-plastic hinge rotation h!steresis law" 4t
has6 (a) a bilinear s/eleton cure (for monotonic loading) with post-!ield hardening ratio e.ual to
,=, (b) unloading to a residual plastic hinge rotation at zero moment e.ual to +)= of that for
unloading at the stiffness of the elastic branch, and (c) reloading thereafter towards the e?treme
preious point on the s/eleton cure in the direction of reloading" Ra!leigh damping is
considered, with iscous damping ratio of ,= at the fundamental period of the elastic frame and
at twice that period" *he elastic stiffness of members is ta/en e.ual to their secant stiffness at
!ielding of both ends in antis!mmetric bending6 E4eff> 2!3s<5!, with 2! the !ield moment of the
member end section (e.ual to the ultimate moment for the initial alue of the a?ial force), 3s the
shear span (ta/en e.ual to half the member clear length) and ! the chord-rotation of the shear
span at !ielding, estimated according to &anagiota/os and Fardis (%))$) and fib (%))5)" :n
aerage, the so-calculated E4eff is in agreement with oer $,)) test results, but is onl! %,= of the
E4-alue of the uncrac/ed gross section" &-B effects are considered in columns"
Columns are assumed fi?ed at grade leel7 beam grait! loads are based on beam tributar! areas in
the two-wa! s.uare slab s!stem7 the finite size of beam-column Aoints is considered7 Aoints are
assumed rigid but the contribution of bar pull-out from Aoints to the fi?ed-end rotation at member
ends is considered ia the alue of ! used in calculating E4eff" :n each side of a beam the width of
the slab considered as effectie in tension and contributing to the top reinforcement of the beam
end sections with the slab bars that are parallel to the beam, is ta/en as %,= of the beam span"
;
(a) (b)
F/0)&! 5" M/$/*)*6*a:/*)* &a$0! a$, *!a$ *!*b!& %1#&,6&#'a'/#$ ,!*a$,6'#6-)227
&a'/# 3&#* < '/*!61/-'#&7 a$a7-!- #3 56-'#&7 3&a*!- ./'1 ,!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 #& (b) 8.50.
(a) (b)
F/0)&! =" M/$/*)*6*a:/*)* &a$0! a$, *!a$ *!*b!& %1#&,6&#'a'/#$ ,!*a$,6'#6-)227
&a'/# 3&#* < '/*!61/-'#&7 a$a7-!- #3 86-'#&7 3&a*!- ./'1 ,!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 #& (b) 8.50.
+
(a) (b)
F/0)&! @" M/$/*)*6*a:/*)* &a$0! a$, *!a$ *!*b!& %1#&,6&#'a'/#$ ,!*a$,6'#6-)227
&a'/# 3&#* < '/*!61/-'#&7 a$a7-!- #3 126-'#&7 3&a*!- ./'1 ,!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 #& (b) 8.50.
Frame performance under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e is ealuated on the basis of the ratio of chord
rotation demand at member ends to the corresponding suppl! or capacit!" 2ember capacit! is
ta/en e.ual to the chord rotation at which the member e?hibits a drop in pea/ lateral force
resistance during a c!cle, aboe %)= of the ma?imum preious lateral resistance during the test
(Floss of lateral load capacit!G, considered as a Fnear-collapseG condition at the member leel)"
*his member chord rotation capacit! is computed ia an empirical e?pression fitted to the results
of oer $))) c!clic tests to failure (&anagiota/os and Fardis %))$, fib %))5)"
*he member chord rotation demand-to-suppl! ratio is considered as a Fdamage ratioG against loss
of lateral load capacit! (FcollapseG) of the member" Figures # to ; gie the range (minimum and
ma?imum) and the mean of this Fdamage ratioG for the beams and the columns of the frames for
the seen ground motions, each considered to act in the positie and in the negatie direction"
8

(a)

(b)
Figure 3: 4atio of sum of column 5exural ca!acities to sum of beam
5exural ca!acities around 6oints in frames of: )C * #left$% + #middle$
or , #rig"t$- )esign ./A: #a$ 0-'g1 #b$ 0-2g- Closed circles: exterior
6oints1 o!en circles: interior 6oints-
*o assist in the interpretation of the concentration of inelastic deformation and damage in beams
or columns, Figure + presents the alues of the ratio of the sum of column fle?ural capacities
around Aoints to the sum of beam fle?ural capacities around the same Aoint, separatel! for interior
or e?terior Aoints and for each sense of moments around the Aoint" *he effect of the fluctuation of
a?ial load on column capacit!, which is ta/en into account during the seismic response anal!sis, is
neglected in the calculation of column fle?ural capacit!" @eam negatie moment capacities are
-
much larger that in design calculations, due to the large contribution of slab reinforcement parallel
to the beam considered in the nonlinear response anal!sis but neglected in design" 0espite of that,
in 0C 2 and 1 frames the sum of column capacities e?ceeds that of beams b! a factor much
greater than the factor of used in design" 4n 0C 3 frames, which do not hae a strong column -
wea/ beam design, the column-to-beam fle?ural capacit! ratio is around $"), often falling behind
that alue and suggesting plastic hinging in columns"
*he main conclusion from Figures # to ; is that, despite their large differences in member cross-
sections and amount and detailing of reinforcement, frames with the same number of stories
designed for the same &'( but for different 0C hae similar performance under the #+,-!r
earth.ua/e" F0amage ratiosG are er! consistent between interior and e?terior members and fairl!
similar in frames with different number of stories" *his means that the application of Eurocode 8,
with its three alternatie ductilit! options, results in fairl! uniform and consistent performance
under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e" 4t is noteworth! that the ma?imum alues of the demand-to-suppl!
ratio are alwa!s less than the threshold of about )"# corresponding to the ,=-fractile of member
chord-rotation capacit!7 proiding a safet! margin against the inherent uncertaint! of ultimate
deformation capacit!" 2ore specificall!, the following conclusions are drawn from Figures # to ;"
4n the frames designed for ductilit! (i"e" for 0C 2 or 1), the chord rotation demand-to-suppl!
ratio (Fdamage ratioG) assumes er! similar alues at all intended plastic hinge locations H i"e" at
ends of beams and at the base of columns at grade leel6 in general between )"% and )"5 (or )"$ to
)"$, at the base of columns of $%-stor! frames designed to )"%g)" *he alue of the Fdamage ratioG
is much lower oer the rest of the column height (around )"$, or )"), in the $%-stor! frames
designed to )"%g) than at grade leel, consistent with the high column-to-beam fle?ural capacit!
ratios shown in Figure + for the 0C 2 and 1 frames" @eam Fdamage ratiosG decrease slightl!
when going from 0C 1 to 0C 2" (boe the base of the columns, the Fdamage ratioG is not
significantl! affected b! design to either 0C 2 or 0C 1" (lthough differences in performance of
the 0C 2 and 1 frames under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e are hard to identif!, design for 0C 1 seems
to gie slightl! better oerall performance onl! in the $%-stor! frame designed for a &'( of )"#g"
4n that particular case the 0C 1 frame has lower and more consistent Fdamage ratiosG in the
columns aboe the ground stor! and oerall similar beam performance" 4n all other cases, design
for 0C 2 consistentl! gies slightl! superior performance in the beams than design for 0C 1" (s
$)
far as the columns are concerned, performance is about the same in all 0C 2 or 1 frames other
than the $%-stor! ones designed for )"#g"
Frames designed to 0C 3 (i"e" for strength alone rather than for controlled inelastic response and
ductilit!) hae alwa!s lower beam Fdamage ratiosG than 0C 2 or 1 frames, despite (a) the less
confining reinforcement and the lower minimum compression reinforcement ratio of 0C 3 beams
and (b) the reduction in beam deformation capacit! effected b! the smaller shear span ratio, 3s<h,
of 0C 3 beams which are deeper than their 0C 1 and 2 counterparts" *his is attributed to6 (a)
the large fle?ural capacit! of these beams, which promotes plastic hinging and inelastic
deformations in columns instead of beams (cf" Figure +)7 and (b) the increase in beam deformation
capacit! due to the hea! bottom reinforcement owing to proportioning of the end sections of
these beams for the large positie seismic moments of the anal!sis for the design seismic action"
*he columns of all 0C 3 frames designed for a &'( of )"%g, as well as those of the #-stor!
frames designed for a &'( of )"#g, hae similar Fdamage ratiosG as in the frames designed to 0C
2 or 1" *his is despite the apparent occurrence of inelastic deformations at seeral leels of 0C 3
columns and the effect of the lower confining reinforcement on their deformation capacit!, and is
attributed to the reduction in deformation demands owing to the larger oerall effectie stiffness
of 0C 3 frames, due to their heaier reinforcement" 'ien that 0C 3 frames designed for a &'(
of )"%g, as well as 0C 3 #-stor! frames designed for a &'( of )"#g hae also slightl! superior
beam performance, their oerall performance under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e is e.ual or slightl!
better than that of the 0C 2 or 1 designs"
*he columns of 8- or $%-stor! 0C 3 frames designed for a &'( of )"#g do not show a clear
concentration of plastic hinge rotations at the base" *his is not surprising, in iew of the column-
to-beam capacit! ratios in Figure +" 2oreoer, the! show a er! large scatter of the Fdamage
ratioG in the upper stories, indicatie of erratic column hinging due to higher-mode response"
F0amage ratiosG are large in the upper stor! columns of these designs, despite6 (a) the reduced
deformation demands due to the larger oerall effectie stiffness of these frames, effected b! the
large cross-section and the hea! reinforcement of their members7 and (b) the increase in column
chord-rotation capacit! due to the lower column a?ial load ratio, d, effected b! the larger column
size (cf" *able $)" 4t is concluded, therefore, that for a &'( of )"#g, in addition to being not cost-
effectie, 0C 3 gies also inferior oerall performance under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e"
$$
5. DAMAGE LIMITATION PERFORMANCE UNDER THE A=6>EAR EARTH?UAKE
Frame members were sized so that stor! drift ratio under the -,-!r earth.ua/e, computed ia
elastic anal!sis with ,)= of the uncrac/ed gross section stiffness, nowhere e?ceeds the damage
limitation threshold of )",=" Frame performance under this earth.ua/e is ealuated ia nonlinear
d!namic anal!sis of the response to the same set of seen motions used in the anal!ses for the
#+,-!r earth.ua/e, scaled this time to the &'( of the -,-!r earth.ua/e (ta/en as ,)= that of the
#+,-!r one)" *he same modeling was used as in the response anal!ses for the #+,-!r eent"
Figure 8 shows the range (minimum and ma?imum) and the mean alue of the computed stor!
drift ratios oer the seen input ground motions" 0C 3 frames, with their higher oerall effectie
stiffness due to the large cross-section and the heaier reinforcement of their members, hae lower
drifts than 0C 2 or 1 ones" Iith few e?ceptions, the drifts of 0C 2 and 1 frames e?ceed the
damage limitation threshold of )",=" *he main reason is that in the anal!sis member elastic
stiffness is, on aerage, half of the conentional alue of ,)= of that of the uncrac/ed gross
section used in design" &lastic hinging and &-B effects increase computed drifts further" 'ien all
these sources of deiation, the magnitude of the iolation of the )",= threshold is still small"
=. CONCLUSIONS" COST EFFECTI;ENESS OF ALTERNATI;E DESIGN OPTIONS
*he performance of all frames (een of those not designed for ductilit!) is satisfactor! under the
#+,!r earth.ua/e and acceptable under the -,!r one" 0ifferences in seismic performance of the
three alternatie designs are limited, in iew of their large difference in material .uantities" 0C 3
has a disadantage under the #+,-!r earth.ua/e for medium-high rise frames in high seismicit!
and an adantage oer 0C 2 or 1 at the damage limitation earth.ua/e" 4n iew of the different
material .uantities and of the fairl! similar performance of the 5 alternatie designs, design for
strength alone (0C 3) is much less cost-effectie than design for ductilit! (0C 2 or 1) and not a
iable option for medium-high rise frames een in moderate seismicit! (&'( of )"%g)" 0esign for
0C 3 is less cost-effectie than for 2 or 1 een in low-rise frames in moderate seismicit!"
$%
(a)
(b)
F/0)&! 8" M/$/*)*6*a:/*)* &a$0! a$, *!a$ -'#&7 ,&/3' &a'/# 3&#* < '/*!61/-'#&7
a$a7-!- )$,!& ,a*a0! /*/'a'/#$ (A=67&) !a&'1B)aC! 3#& ,!-/0$ PGA" (a) 8.209 #& (b) 8.50.
T#2" 56-'#&7 3&a*!-9 */,,!" 86-'#&7 3&a*!-9 b#''#*" 126-'#&7 3&a*!-.
@. REFERENCES
CEN (%))5)" prEN$--8-$6 Eurocode 86 0esign of structures for earth.ua/e resistance" &art $6
'eneral rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings" Formal Jote ersion, :ctober %))5"
fib-FKdKration internationale du bKton (%))5)" Seismic assessment and retrofit of RC buildings"
Chapter #6 fib @ulletin No" %#, 3ausanne"
&anagiota/os *", and 2"N" Fardis (%))$)" 0eformations of RC members at !ielding and ultimate"
(C4 9tructural Lournal, -8, %6 $5,-$#8"
$5