A Parametric Study on RC Existing Buildings to Compare Different Analysis Methods Considered in the European Seismic Code (EC8-3)


Abstract eng:
In the paper a parametric study on Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames representative of structural types widely present in the European building stock is carried out. Buildings designed only for vertical loads are considered, detailed adopting the simulated design procedure as described in (Masi, 2003) and introduced in the European code for the assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings (CEN, 2004). Structural types having different number of storeys (3 cases: 2, 4 and 8 storeys), presence and position of masonry infills (3 cases: bare, infilled and pilotis frames) are considered. The seismic response is evaluated by means of the linear and non-linear static analysis methods provided in the seismic code. The different performances obtained adopting different seismic action levels (4 cases: very low to high seismic zone), behaviour factors (4 cases, only for linear analysis), knowledge levels and confidence factors (3 cases), concrete strength (3 cases: 10, 18 and 28 MPa), are computed. The results are compared to understand the coherence of the analysis methods provided in the code, that is if they lead to equivalent results in respect of the limit states verification taking also into account the different complexity and accuracy of the adopted method. The role of some parameters on the performances is emphasized and an outline of the future developments of the study aimed at upgrading the current version of the code is provided.

Contributors:
Conference Title:
Conference Title:
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Conference Venue:
Bejing (CN)
Conference Dates:
2008-10-12 / 2008-10-17
Rights:
Text je chráněný podle autorského zákona č. 121/2000 Sb.



Record appears in:



 Record created 2014-12-05, last modified 2014-12-05


Original version of the author's contribution as presented on CD, Paper ID: 08-02-0076.:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)