Advertisement

Qualitative and Quantitative Differences in the Calculations of Reinforced Concrete Frames

  • Marijana Hadzima-NyarkoEmail author
  • Naida Ademović
  • Sanja Jović
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 83)

Abstract

A comparison between the current codes and enforced codes at the time of construction of a real multi-storey reinforced concrete (RC) frame was made. This paper presents qualitative and quantitative differences in the calculation of reinforced concrete structures according to the Technical Standards for Concrete and Reinforced Concrete (PBAB87) and Eurocode 2 (EC 2). A model of the RC frame was created utilizing SAP2000 software to check the internal forces and moments and the basic dynamic properties of the structure. The value of the fundamental period of the modelled structure, as one of the most important dynamic properties of the structures, was compared with the values calculated according to the equations given in Eurocode 8 (EC 8), but also by other norms and according to several expressions given by the researchers. Large differences in the values of the fundamental period were found and it was from 3.4% up to 60%.

References

  1. 1.
    Tomičić, I.: Priručnik za proračun armiranobetonskih konstrukcija. Društvo hrvatskih građevinskih konstruktora, Zagreb (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pravilnih o tehničkim normativima za beton i armirani beton, Službeni list br. 11, Beograd (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eurocode 2. EN 1992-1-1:2004.: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, Bruxelles (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tomičić, I.: Betonske konstrukcije, 3. izmijenjeno i dopunjeno izdanje, Društvo hrvatskih građevinskih konstruktora, Zagreb (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tehnički propis za betonske konstrukcije (NN 101/05) (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tehnički propis za betonske konstrukcije (NN 139/2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eurocode 8, EN 1998-1: 2004: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, Bruxelles (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kalman Šipoš, T., Hadzima-Nyarko, M.: Seismic risk of Croatian cities based on building’s vulnerability. Tech. Gaz. 25(4), 1088–1094 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong, L., Hwang, W.: Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 29, 327–333 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikoo, M., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Khademi, F., Mohasseb, S.: Estimation of fundamental period of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings using self organization feature map. Struct. Eng. Mech. 63(2), 237–249 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asteris, P.A., Repapis, C.C., Foskolos, F., Fotos, A., Tsaris, A.K.: Fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures with vertical irregularity. Struct. Eng. Mech. 61(5), 663–674 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Draganić, H., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Morić, D.: Comparison of RC frames periods with the empiric expressions given in Eurocode 8. Tech. Gaz. 17(1), 93–100 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asteris, P.G., Repapis, C.C., Tsaris, A.K., Di Trapani, F., Cavaleri, L.: Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures. Earthq. Struct. 9(5), 999–1028 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Köse, M.M.: Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls. Eng. Struct. 31(1), 93–102 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abo El-Wafa, W.M., Alsulami, B.T., Elamary, A.S.: Studying the effect of masonry infill walls on the natural period and lateral behavior of RC buildings in comparison with the SBC. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 6(6), 10–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asteris, P.G., Nikoo, M.: Artificial bee colony-based neural network for the prediction of the fundamental period of infilled frame structures. Neural Comput. Appl. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-03965-1
  17. 17.
    NBCC, National Building Code of Canada: Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), Ottawa, Ontario (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guler, K., Yuksel, E., Kocak, A.: Estimation of the fundamental vibration period of existing RC buildings in Turkey utilizing ambient vibration records. J. Earthq. Eng. 12, 140–150 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ditommaso, R., Vona, M., Gallipoli, M.R., Mucciarelli, M.: Evaluation and considerations about fundamental periods of damaged reinforced concrete buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 1903–1912 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Navarro, M., Sánchez, F.J., Feriche, M., Vidal, F., Enomoto, T., Iwatate, T., Matsuda, I., Maeda, T.: Statistical estimation for dynamic characteristics of existing buildings in Granada, Spain, using microtremors. Struct. Dyn., Eurodyn 1, 807–812 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goel, R.K., Chopra, A.K.: Period formulas for moment resisting frame buildings. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 123(11), 1454–1461 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NEHRP: Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    HRN EN 1998-1:2011/NA. National Anex to EN 1998-1:2004: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization, CEN, Bruxelles (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko
    • 1
    Email author
  • Naida Ademović
    • 2
  • Sanja Jović
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture OsijekUniversity J.J. Strossmayer OsijekOsijekCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering in SarajevoUniversity of SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  3. 3.NWind GmbHHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations