Performance Verification of Seismic Design Codes for RC Frames

Authors: Payam Asadi, Ali Bakhshi

Abstract:

In this study, a frame work for verification of famous seismic codes is utilized. To verify the seismic codes performance, damage quantity of RC frames is compared with the target performance. Due to the randomness property of seismic design and earthquake loads excitation, in this paper, fragility curves are developed. These diagrams are utilized to evaluate performance level of structures which are designed by the seismic codes. These diagrams further illustrate the effect of load combination and reduction factors of codes on probability of damage exceedance. Two types of structures; very high important structures with high ductility and medium important structures with intermediate ductility are designed by different seismic codes. The Results reveal that usually lower damage ratio generate lower probability of exceedance. In addition, the findings indicate that there are buildings with higher quantity of bars which they have higher probability of damage exceedance. Life-cycle cost analysis utilized for comparison and final decision making process.

Keywords: RC frame, fragility curve, performance-base design, life-cycle cost analyses, seismic design codes.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1079694

References:

[1] ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers; 2010.
[2] EC8. EURO04 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European Committee for Standardisation: Brussels, Belgium, The European Standard EN 1998-1, 2004.
[3] Yong Lu, Hong Hao, P.G. Carydis, H. Mouzakis, 2001, Seismic performance of RC frames designed for three different ductility levels, Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 537-547.
[4] Hwang HHM, Huo JR, 1994. Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1994; 13:345-354.
[5] Barron, R., and Reinhorn, A., 2000, Spectral Evaluation of Seismic Fragility of Structures, Technical Report, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, .
[6] Nikos D. Lagaros, Michalis Fragiadakis, (2011), Evaluation of ASCE- 41, ATC-40 and N2 static pushover methods based on optimally designed buildings, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 77-90.
[7] Wen YK, Kang YJ. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: Methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127(3):330-7.
[8] Wen YK, Kang YJ. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: Applications. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127(3):338-46.
[9] Iranian National Institute, Buildings code requirements for structural concrete, chapter 9, edition 2010.
[10] Buildings code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-89). Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute (ACI), 1989.
[11] Buildings code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08). Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008.
[12] British Standard Institute, BS 8110: Part 1: 1997. Structural use of concrete - Code of practice for design and construction.
[13] Iranian codes of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Standard No.2800-05(3rd edition).
[14] Valles R E, et al. IDARC2D version 7.0: a computer program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings. NCEER, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, NCEER-96-0010, 1996.
[15] http\www.ce.washington.edu\~peera1\main.htm.
[16] FEMA356. Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356-357. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Reston (VA); 2000.
[17] Ghobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: International workshop on performance-based seismic design, June 28- July 1, 2004.
[18] FEMA 227. A benefit-cost model for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council; 1992.