Advertisement

Ductility considerations in seismic design of reinforced concrete frame buildings according to the Eurocode 8

  • Hugo RodriguesEmail author
  • Mahmoud H. Elawady
Practice-oriented Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

The Eurocode 8 included three ductility classes: ductility class high (DC H), ductility class medium (DC M) and ductility class low (DC L). The aim of the present work is to give a full analysis of the implication during the design stage of the ductility class for the reinforced concrete frame structures regarding the Eurocode 8. To carry out the proposed study, a regular RC frame building has been designed in different hazard seismic zones for the three ductility classes according to the seismic design rules mentioned in Eurocode 8. In the end, nonlinear pushover analysis was used to assess the design of the frames. The results show that DC M has a high performance close to DC H, even in the high hazard seismic zones, and the cost of DC M frame is close to the costs of DC H frame, which could be less, if the workmanship is included, because DC H will cost more for the workmanship according to its complexity of the detailing.

Keywords

Seismic design Ductility Reinforced concrete Eurocode 8 

References

  1. 1.
    Mantawy A, Anderson J (2015) Ductility of reinforced concrete frame buildings subjected to the recent New Zealand earthquakes. In: IABSE symposium report. International association for bridge and structural engineering, vol 105, no 11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A (2010) Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. J Earthq Eng 14(3):390–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papamichalopoulos A (2014) Optimum ductility assessment of earthquake resistant structures. Civ Eng Archit 2(6):251–256.  https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2014.020603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues H, Arede A, Varum H, Costa A (2012) Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modeling strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11:553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uang CM, Bertero VV (1986) Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3 scale model of a six-story concentrically braced steel structure. Report no. UCB/EERC-86/10, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    FEMA356 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaulagain H et al (2014) Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(3):455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodrigues H, Varum H, Arêde A, Costa AG (2013) Behaviour of reinforced concrete column under biaxial cyclic loading—state of the art. Int J Adv Struct Eng 5(1):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eurocode 2 Part 1-1 (2004) Design of concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. ISBN: 978 0 580 73752 7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Threlfall T (2009) Designed and detailed—good concrete guide 9. The Concrete Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Booth ED (2012) Creating a vision for the future of Eurocode 8. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofit of concrete buildings, based on Eurocode 8. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fardis MN, Papailia A, Tsionis G (2012) Seismic fragility of RC framed and wall-frame buildings designed to the EN-Eurocodes. Bull Earthq Eng 10:1767–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Athanzassiadou CJ (2008) Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation. Eng Struct 30:1250–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic performance of RC frames designed to Eurocode 8 or to the Greek Codes 2000. Bull Earthq Eng 2:221–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Namdev Khose V, Singh Y, Lang DH (2012) A comparative study of design base shear for RC buildings in selected seismic design codes. Earthq Spect 28(3):1047–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kappos AJ (1998) Influence of ductility class on the seismic reliability and cost of EC8-designed structures. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kappos AJ, Antoniadis P (2007) A contribution to seismic shear design of R/C walls in dual structures. Bull Earthq Eng 5:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anagnostopoulou V, Zeris C, Karayannis C (2012) Evaluation of the q factor of irregular RC buildings designed according to EC8. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carvalho EC, Coelho E, Fardis MN (1996) Assessment of EC8 provisions for reinforced concrete frames, paper 2049. 11 WCEE: eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June 23–28, 1996Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sextos A, Simopoulos S, Skoulidou D (2015) Ductility, performance and construction cost of r/c buildings designed to Eurocode 8. ECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, 9-10 July 2015, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(5):407–424.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7 (ISSN 0141-0296) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Surana M (2000) Non-linear static analysis using SAP 2000. Non-Linear Analysis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT RoorkeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Campos CA, Sousa ML, Carvalho A (2008) Seismic zonation for Portuguese national annex of Eurocodes. In: 14 world conference on earthquake engineering, 14WCEE, October 12–17, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RISCO - School of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaLeiriaPortugal
  2. 2.School of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaLeiriaPortugal

Personalised recommendations