Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1379–1406 | Cite as

Rapid seismic assessment of two four-storey R.C. test buildings

  • Stylianos I. PardalopoulosEmail author
  • Stavroula J. Pantazopoulou
Original Research
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings that are classified as non-conforming to modern earthquake standards is an urgent priority, since this class of buildings represents the majority of the built environment throughout the world. To address this need a simple procedure for rapid seismic assessment (RSA) of the earthquake demand and available capacity of existing buildings has been devised and calibrated through field applications. RSA is based on first principles, considering the prevalent failure modes of the load bearing components of the structure, and easily accessible information regarding the geometric and material characteristics of the structure. In this paper the RSA method is further improved by introducing expressions for direct estimation of the local drift demands of the examined building at peak seismic response using the structure’s unique geometric and material properties. The accuracy of the RSA procedure is evaluated through application and comparison of the assessment results with the recorded seismic responses of two model experimental structures that had been tested under pseudo dynamic loads simulating earthquake effects, reported in the literature. The example structures were chosen because they were full-scale structures with relatively simple layout (planar frames), in order to develop an instructive paradigm of the RSA’s application for the interest of practitioners.

Keywords

Seismic assessment Performance Earthquake engineering Existing construction 

References

  1. Clough RW, Penzien J (1975) Dynamics of structures, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. EN 1998-1 (2004) Eurocode 8—Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. EN 1998-3 (2005) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. FEMA P-154 (2015) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. FEMA-356, Prestandard (2000) Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. FIB Bulletin 24 (2003) Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings, State-of-art report prepared by Task Group 7.1. Federation of Structural Concrete (FIB)Google Scholar
  7. Greek Code of Structural Interventions 2012 (2012) Earthquake planning and protection organization of Greece (E.P.P.O.), AthensGoogle Scholar
  8. Gülkan P, Sozen MA (1999) Procedure for determining seismic vulnerability of building structures. ACI Struct J 96(3):336–342Google Scholar
  9. Gür T, Pay AC, Ramirez JA, Sozen MA, Johnson AM, Irfanoglu A, Bobet A (2009) Performance of school buildings in Turkey during the 1999 Düzce and the 2003 Bingöl earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 25(2):239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3089367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Initial Evaluation Procedure (IEP) Assessment (2017). New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), Structural Engineering Society (SESOC) and NZ Geotechnical Society (NZGS). http://www.EQ-Assess.org.nz
  11. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) (2001) Standard for seismic evaluation and guidelines for seismic retrofit of existing reinforced concrete buildings (English Edition)Google Scholar
  12. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9023-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pantazopoulou SJ, Syntzirma DV (2010) Deformation capacity of lightly reinforced concrete members–comparative evaluation. In: Fardis M (ed) Advances in performance-based earthquake engineering. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 359–371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8746-1_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pardalopoulos S, Thermou GE, Pantazopoulou SJ (2013) Screening criteria to identify brittle R.C. structural failures in earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 11:607–636.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9390-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pardalopoulos SI, Pantazopoulou SJ, Lekidis VA (2018a) Simplified method for rapid seismic assessment of older R.C. buildings. Eng Struct 154:10–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pardalopoulos SI, Pantazopoulou SJ, Thermou GE (2018b) Seismic rehabilitation of substandard R.C. buildings with masonry infills. J Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1453397 Google Scholar
  17. Priestley MN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shiga T, Shibata A, Takahashi T (1968) Earthquake damage and wall index of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the Tohuku district symposium, archit. Institute of Japan, vol 12, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  19. Thermou GΕ, Pantazopoulou SJ (2011) Assessment indices for the seismic vulnerability of existing R.C. buildings with masonry infill walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(3):293–313.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vamvatsikos D, Pantazopoulou SJ (2016) Simplified mechanical model to estimate the seismic vulnerability of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. J Earthq Eng 20(2):298–325.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1060583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Varum H (2003) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. Dissertation, Universidade de AveiroGoogle Scholar
  23. Yakut A (2004) Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Eng Struct 26(10):1447–1461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yakut A, Gülkan P, Sadik Bakir B, Tolga Yilmaz M (2005) Re-examination of damage distribution in Adapazari: structural considerations. Eng Struct 27(7):990–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake EngineeringThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde Faculty of EngineeringYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations