Is There Disarray in Description of Performance Requirements?

Abstract eng:
A variety of seismic performance evaluation procedures have been developed for determining the expected performance of reinforced concrete buildings under the effects of prescribed earthquake motions. These procedures are based on linear or nonlinear analyses of the structural models to compute deformation demands for elements. These demands are then compared with performance level-based acceptability limits. This study aims to investigate the correctness of existing assessment procedures using data collected from an actual structure tested in the laboratory. The procedures outlined in FEMA-356, EUROCODE-8 and Turkish Earthquake Code are applied to a full-size, three-story, non-symmetric reinforced concrete building tested at the ELSA laboratory at JRC/Ispra under the SPEAR project. For this purpose, a 3D analytical model of the building is subjected to the records used in the experimental phase and deformation demands are computed according to the procedures described in the guidelines that are being assessed for their correctness. The performance of the structure is evaluated at member level and the accuracy of the considered procedures is rated through comparisons with measurements and observations made after the experiments. The study indicates that the main difference between the procedures stem from different performance-based limit values and the characterizing phrases that are used to qualify them. It appears necessary that a harmonization should be agreed upon before universal application of these procedures. Otherwise the conflicting acceptability criteria among different procedures are likely to create confusion among engineers.

• Export as: BibTeX | MARC | MARCXML | DC | EndNote | NLM | RefWorks
• Add to your basket