Case Study on Vulnerability Increase for a Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure

Open access

Abstract

Seismic vulnerability for a structure represents the susceptibility to be affected by an event with a given intensity. The vulnerability of a structure can be influenced by the design methods or by different problems that may appear during the execution process.

This paper shows a case study for the vulnerability increase of a reinforced concrete frame structure in 2 different situations:

a) modification produced due to code changes, meaning P100-2006 respectively P100-2013;

b) modifications produced the structure taking into account the errors which have occurred during the execution process;

For both cases, capacity curves were plotted considering the nonlinear analysis, also called pushover. The numerical simulation was performed in SAP2000 software. These curves were compared with the response spectrum corresponding to the site conditions in order to obtain the performance point. For accurate results, fragility curves were plotted for both considered situations, according to previous research of the authors.

The paper emphasizes the importance of each stage during the execution of a structure. More over the differences in the vulnerability index show the importance on the overall behavior of the structure. Solution to increase strength and safety for the structure are also given at the end of the paper

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1]. Barbat A.H. Pujades L.G. Lantada N. (2008) Seismic Damage Evaluation in Urban Areas Using the Capacity Spectrum Method: Application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn. a. Earthquake Engng. 28 10 851-865.

  • [2]. Benedetti D. Petrini V. (1984) Sulla vulnerabilita sismica di edifici in muratura i proposte di un metodo di valutazione. L’industria delle Construzioni 149 66-74.

  • [3]. Calvi G.M. Magenes G. Bommer J.J. Pinho R. Crowley H. Restrepo-Vélez L.F. (2006) Displacement-Based Methods for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at Variable Geographical Scales. ISET J. Earthquake Technol 43 3 75-104.

  • [4]. Fajfar P. (2000) A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance Based Seismic Design. Earthquake Engng. A. Struct. Dyn. 16 3 573-592.

  • [5]. Freeman S.A.( 1978) Prediction of Response of Concrete Buildings to Severe Earthquake Motion. Proc. of Douglas McHenry Internat. Symp. on Concrete a. Concrete Struct. publication SP-55 Amer. Concrete Inst. Detroit Michigan USA.

  • [6]. Grünthal G.(1998) European Macroseismic Scale. Vol. 15 Luxemburg: Centre Européen de Géodynamique et Séismologie Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie

  • [7]. Milutinovic Z.V. Trendafiloski G.S.(2003) RISK-UE an Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns. Contract: EVK4-CT-2000-00014 WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings.

  • [8]. Nour El-Din Abd-Alla M. (2007) Application of Recent Techniques of Pushover for Evaluating Seismic Performance of Multistory Buildings. M. Sc. Diss. Faculty of Engng Cairo Univ. Egypt.

  • [9]. Riddell R. Llera J.C. (1996) Seismic Analysis and Design: Current Practice and Future Trends. Proc. of 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engng. Acapulco Mexico Paper No. 2010 1-12.

  • [10]. Sobol I.M. (1983) Método de Montecarlo. Ed. Mir Moscow.

  • [11]. Zou X.K. Chan C.M. (2005) Optimal Seismic Performance-Based Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Non-Linear Pushover Analysis. Engng. Struct. 27 1289-1302.

  • [12]. Pastia C. S.G. Luca (2013) Vibration Control of A Frame Structure using Semi-Active Tuned Mass Damper Bul. I.P. Iaşi Tomul LIX (LXIII) Fasc. 4 pp. 31-40.2.

  • [13]. P100 / 2006 and 2013 Romanian code for seismic Design.

  • [14]. http://s276.photobucket.com/user/MaryLou4/media/image012.jpg.html

  • [15]. Olteanu I. Barbat A.H. Budescu M. (2015) Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures Considering the Effect of Structural Characteristics The Open Civil Engineering Journal 2015 9 pp 321-329

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 352 180 2
PDF Downloads 974 886 55