Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper presents the general criteria and implementation of an automatic procedure to evaluate the
Received 31 October 2008 seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete (RC) regular buildings. The method represents a useful
Accepted 28 June 2009 tool in the framework of mechanical based vulnerability assessment methods. In particular, the seismic
Available online 6 August 2009
capacity is retrieved via pushover analyses on a lumped plasticity model for the building. Unlike recent
approaches that rely on a single representative structural model for an entire building population, the
Keywords: proposed method allows virtually all the buildings of the population to be analysed in an automatic loop.
RC building
With the aim of expediting and automatizing the analysis process, a dedicated software was imple-
Seismic capacity
Structural identification
mented, whose main functions are: identifying possible structural systems compatible with regular
Simulated design procedure building shapes of assigned dimensions and designing its elements in terms of cross-section and rein-
Pushover analysis forcement; constructing the related nonlinear model and performing pushover analyses in order to deter-
mine synthetic capacity parameters useful for preliminary vulnerability assessment at a large scale. The
software application and potentialities are shown in an example for the generic building of a class.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0965-9978/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.06.011
324 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
new approach was proposed [13] that evaluates a probabilistic In the following, the single routines are presented, evidencing
seismic capacity for a generic RC building starting from few avail- the relative geometric, structural and mechanical parameters that
able data (morphologic shape and global building dimensions). In are necessary to characterise each structure. The software applica-
such a method, the building model is reproduced through suitably bility is restricted to regular structures, whose fundamental vibrat-
implemented automatic simulated design procedure, while the ing mode is translational; in the following description we refer to
capacity parameters are retrieved based on the results of conven- rectangular morphology.
tional pushover [14], with force distribution proportional to the
first mode shape or to the seismic masses [15]. The level of approx- 2.1. The geometric model routine
imation of the procedure adopted to evaluate the seismic capacity,
making use of conventional pushover analysis, is intermediate be- In order to start the procedure global building dimensions are
tween those relative to mechanism based analyses and the detailed required: base plant lengths Lx and Ly and building height Lz from
ones studying the single structure; the results are reliable for reg- the foundation level up to the roof. The routine allows us to subdi-
ular buildings, characterised by translational fundamental vibrat- vide the building volume into 3D meshes ax, ay, az, each corre-
ing mode, while irregular buildings should be studied with more sponding to possible geometric configurations; the latter will be
refined methods such as adaptive pushover or nonlinear dynamic the starting point for identifying the corresponding structural con-
analyses. figuration (structural model routine).
Coherently with the type of analysis, that is nonlinear static and The module dimensions ax, ay depend mainly on minimum/
monotonic, the seismic demand should be evaluated with a spec- maximum beam lengths while the interstorey height az on archi-
tral approach, such as the capacity spectrum method [16]. With a tectural features or building use; the variation in az is limited by
spectral approach both the seismic demand variability [4] and the urban code. Hence, for each dimensional module suitable
the stiffness or strength degradation effect due to earthquake dura- ranges are defined: ai 2 [aimin, aimax] with i = x, y, z.
tion [17,18] may be accounted for. In order to consider the possible variability of interstorey height
This paper is focused on the description of the logical and tech- at the first level, a specific dimension az1 = (j az) is assigned. Final-
nical process underlying the simulated design and analysis of a ly, the stair module length as and the stair number ns are given.
generic RC building. The whole procedure is implemented in spe- Considering the existing building’s features, Lz may be expressed
cific software that allows, for each given built volume: (a) auto- as the sum of two terms: elevation height L0z (from the ground up to
matic identification of the possible structural systems (moment the roof) and the underground height L00z (from the ground level to
resisting frames) connected to the generic volume and design of the quota of the foundations). In particular when underground lev-
the elements; (b) automatic generation of the correspondent els (Fig. 2a) are present: L00z ¼ ðn0z a0z Þ;with n0z number of under-
lumped plasticity models for nonlinear analyses; (c) execution of ground levels and a0z interstorey height; else L00z ¼ Daz , where Daz
conventional pushover analyses to determine the global capacity is the foundation deepening with respect to ground level (Fig. 2b).
parameters; the latter are defined considering three different limit Alternatively to L0z the number of storeys nz could be assigned.
states [15]. Automatic geometric modelling starts and the program identi-
Referring to a building population, the software allows consid- fies the geometric configurations respecting the following compat-
ering explicitly both the intra-building variability, due to the vari- ibility equations:
ation of structural configuration and material properties, and the Lx ¼ nx ax þ ns as
building-to-building variability due to the variation of global
Ly ¼ ny ay
dimensions.
In fact, by letting the global dimensions of buildings in a popu- Lz ¼ L0z þ L00z ¼ ½az1 þ ðnz 1Þaz þ ðn0z a0z Þ
ð1Þ
lation vary, the software allows us to examine in an automatic loop ¼ ½j az þ ðnz 1Þaz þ ðn0z a0z Þ ðcase1Þ
all the structural solutions that are compatible with all those build- Lz ¼ L0z þ L00z ¼ ½az1 þ ðnz 1Þaz þ Daz
ings and eventually determine the capacity function for the popu- ¼ ½j az þ ðnz 1Þaz þ Daz ðcase2Þ
lation, which is required to compute total seismic risk at the
regional scale [4]. where nx and ny are the number of modules in direction X and Y,
while nz is the number of storeys from the ground up to the roof.
Possible geometric configurations are obtained by letting the
2. Automatic procedure module number vary (nx, ny, nz) to reproduce the global dimensions
(Eqs. (1)); only those combinations that respect the ranges
The method was automatized by implementing specific soft- ai 2 [aimin, aimax] with i = x, y, z are admitted. In particular, the min-
ware that develops the design and seismic evaluation process. imum and maximum module number depends on maximum and
The software is organized in the following routines: minimum bay lengths, respectively:
ðLx as ns Þ ðLx as ns Þ
geometric model routine which, given global building dimen- nxmin ¼ ; nxmax ¼ ð2Þ
axmax axmin
sions, identifies all the geometric configurations that are com- Ly Ly
patible with the assigned building volume (Fig. 1a); nymin ¼ ; nymax ¼ ð3Þ
aymax aymin
structural model routine which, for each geometric solution
among those retrieved in geometric model routine, identifies and the number of storeys depends on interstorey height:
all compatible structural configurations (Fig. 1b);
L0z L0z
simulated design routine which, for each structural solution nzmin ¼ þ ð1 jÞ; nzmax ¼ þ ð1 jÞ ð4Þ
azmax azmin
among those retrieved in structural model routine, allows the
possible design configurations (structure) to be determined nimin and nimax with i = x, y, z are to be intended, respectively, as the
(Fig. 1c); lower integer number bigger than nimin and the higher integer value
capacity model routine, which allows characterisation of the smaller than nimax, as results of second members of Eqs. (2)–(4).
nonlinear behavior of the elements and the global seismic Varying the module number between the relative extreme val-
capacity for the structure that has been designed with simulated ues, compatible solutions may be defined in terms of ax, ay and az
design approach. associated to the corresponding global dimensions:
G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 325
az
az
az
Lz
az
az
az1
ax ay
Ly ax ay
Lx as ax ay
ax
stair
az
az
az
az
az
az
az
az beam
az
az
az1
az1
ax ay ax
ax ay ax ay
as ax as ay
ax ay ax
ax ay
column
az
column longitudinal
az section reinforcement
az
az beam
az transversal
reinforcement
az1
ax ax ay beam
as ax ay section
ax ay
column
Fig. 1. (a) Geometric identification, (b) structural identification and (c) simulated design: element dimensions and reinforcement evaluation.
az
az
az
az
az
az
L’z
L’z
Lz
Lz
az
az
Δaz a1z
a1z
Ground level
L’’z
a’z
L’’z
Foundation level
Foundation level
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Building height evaluation: (a) presence of underground levels and (b) underground level not present.
position of columns and beams to be defined; Fig. 4 shows the nec- it is possible to identify a number (ny 1) of plane frames along
essary identification steps. The generic column is automatically de- direction X. Analogously, if SW-X is chosen, it is possible to identify
fined as the vertical element connecting consecutive nodes in the a number (nx + ns 1) of plane frames along direction Y.
geometric mesh; the column’s nodes coordinates (xi, yi, zi) are When seismic design is to be applied it is necessary to identify
determined as a function of module dimensions ai and number ni the existing beams parallel to the slab way direction. The global
(i = x, y, z): parameter npi, plane frames along i direction, with i = X, Y, allows
the number of the i way beams to be determined (see Fig. 4).
xi ¼ nxi ax with nxi ¼ 0; . . . ; nx
If SW-Y is chosen, the number of plane frames along Y (to be
yi ¼ nyi ay with nyi ¼ 0; . . . ; ny ð6Þ added to perimetral ones), npy varies between 0 and [nx + ns 1];
zi ¼ nzi az with nzi ¼ 0; . . . ; nz hence, the number of structural solutions resulting from the varia-
tion in npy is [nx + ns]. Analogously, if SW-X is chosen, the number of
The generic beam is defined as horizontal element connecting
plane frames along X, npx varies between 0 and [ny 1]; the num-
consecutive nodes of the geometric mesh. Perimeter beams are
ber of structural solutions resulting from the variation in npx is [ny].
automatically defined by the program, as are the columns. The po-
The structural influence of the stairs is computed with the intro-
sition and number of the remaining beams are determined consid-
duction of a diagonal connection element in the structural model.
ering two more input parameters: the slab resistant direction SW
Considering the variation of SW and np parameters a number of
and the number of frames parallel to the resistant direction of slab
[nx + ny + ns] structural configuration could be identified.
way, np. The latter parameter is to be defined only for the case of
The last parameter that has to be input concerns column’s ori-
seismic design and represents the number of frames in addition
entation OR; it is assumed that columns along the building’s
to perimetral ones.
perimeter and the stairs module have prefixed orientation,
The only slab way definition allows identifying the minimum
whether for the remaining ones X or Y orientation could be as-
number of plane frames compliant with gravity load design. In par-
signed. Hence, the maximum number of structural configurations
ticular, two limit schemes are adopted for the slab way SW: longi-
compatible with a single geometric model is Ns = 2[nx + ny + ns].
tudinal direction X (SW-X) and transversal direction Y (SW-Y). If the
Fig. 5 shows the structural configuration input form for the case
input is SW-Y, all the beams connecting consecutive nodes along
of SW-Y; as it can be seen input variables are the slab’s way SW, the
direction X exist (being load carrying elements); this means that
number of plane frames along Y, npy, and column’s orientation, OR.
ay
ay
ax ax as ax ax
Column orientation
relative loads. Once the construction age input parameter is as- (0.7–1.0) and usually, depending on the load type, a different value
signed, an appropriate query seeks the technical and seismic code was assumed [19]. Coherently, for gravity load design b = 1 is
in the above database. The codes are suitably codified in the data- adopted both for concrete and steel, whereas for seismic load de-
base; the live loads and seismic action can thus be defined auto- sign b < 1 is chosen.
matically once the code is selected by the query (see Fig. 7). Allowable stresses are defined in the technical codes and are
Giving the building location input parameter the peak ground accel- codified in the database, as for the design loads in SD1. Their value
eration required for seismic design is sought in the codes. depends on the class of concrete and steel, and therefore they are
not univocally defined; Table 1 summarises the allowable stresses
2.3.2. Element dimensioning adopted in Italy in the period 1940–1970 [20].
The element dimensioning phase (SD2) utilizes methods that The column area Ac was dimensioned based only on the axial
were adopted at the building design time. In old-type codes and load N and the concrete design stress rc:
design practices it was common to determine approximate design
N
forces for the columns and beams with the use of analytical models Ac ¼ ð7Þ
that were developed at the level of the single element and not for
rc
the entire structure. In order to account for the relative approxima- where the axial load N depends on the permanent G and live Q de-
tion, the stresses adopted for design in the dimensioning phase rc, sign loads and on the area of influence of the generic column:
rs were cautiously determined as a fraction b of allowable stresses, N ¼ ðG þ QÞ ax ay px py ð8Þ
r c for concrete and r s for steel, respectively. In SD2 routine the
operator can choose the reduction factor 0 6 b 6 1. From analysis ax and ay are, respectively, the module dimensions along X and Y,
of a large number of 20th-century designs (from the 1950s to the while px and py are position factors of the column within the struc-
1980s) it resulted that a common value of b was in the interval tural carpentry. The column area is transformed into a rectangular
SD2:Elements dimensioning
SD3:Design
Design check:
section dimension,
Dimensions of NO Design stress
minimum
section elements: definition
reinforcement
(B,H)beam, (B,H)col σc, σs
YES
Horizontal force
distribution
Building location Seismic code
Seismic mass
evaluation
Peak ground
acceleration
Table 1
shear-type element model: the seismic force distribution is
Allowable stresses for concrete and steel class (R.D.2229/1939). based on the ratio of inertia of the single column versus the
sum of inertia of all the columns at the considered storey;
Concrete Steel
plane frames model: the single resisting systems are located and
Minimum concrete Allowable stress Allowable stress the related seismic forces are evaluated as a function of the sto-
strength, Rc (MPa) (MPa)
Axial load Axial load and rey mass affecting the considered plane frame.
bending moment
12 3.5 4.0 – As regards the stairs module, it is not involved in seismic force
16 4.5 5.0 140–180 distribution, consistently with design practices used at the time.
18–22.5 (Rc/3) 6 6.0 (Rc/3) 6 7.5 140–180–200
Once the analysis model is established and the design load com-
bination is considered, the program proceeds to determine ele-
shape Ac = Bcol H with assigned base Bcol (Bcol is 0.30 m by default, ment forces and longitudinal and transversal reinforcement that
but could be modified by the operator); section height H is derived respect allowable stresses for concrete and steel, r c; r
s , respec-
from the previous relation considering an upper approximation of tively. Reinforcement design is performed for both the end sections
0.05 m. for the columns, and also at midspan for beams; these sections are
Regarding the beams, only the bending moment Mmax was con- checked verifying that the flexural and shear capacity are not ex-
sidered with the simplified formula: ceeded by the corresponding solicitations. A negative check causes
the program to reiterate the dimensioning and design phase. SD3
M max ¼ ðG þ Q Þ ðay py Þ a2x =a ð9Þ routine completes building structural identification and several
where G and Q are permanent and live loads, respectively, ay the structures compatible with building global dimensions are
length of the slabs adjacent to the beam, py the beam position factor determined.
(py = 0.50 for perimeter beam, py = 1.00 for central beam), ax is beam
length and a is a factor depending on the element constraint 2.4. Seismic capacity analysis
scheme (a = 8–12). The above formula refers to SW-Y definition.
Analogously, the moment Mmax could be determined for SW-X def- Global seismic capacity parameters for the generic structure
inition with the sole permutation of indices x, y in formula. Again, identified in the previous phase are determined via nonlinear static
by defining the minimum transverse dimension Bbeam of the ele- pushover analysis. Adopting the lumped plasticity model, it is first
ment cross-section and imposing respect of design stress for the necessary to define the characteristic curve representing the non-
materials, the other dimension H may be determined. linear behavior for each single element (beam and column); next,
This phase is concluded checking that the elements dimensions global building analyses for both directions X and Y is performed.
comply to basic ‘‘good-practice” rules; for example for the col- Element flexural behavior is characterised by the definition of a
umns, excessive cross-section variation (>10 cm between two moment-rotation constitutive law (plastic hinge); Fig. 8a shows
adjacent floors) is avoided along the building elevation. the monotonic curve of the flexural model, which is described by
seven parameters (Mcr, My, Mmax, Mu, hy, hmax, hu). By performing
2.3.3. Element design nonlinear analyses of the extreme sections of each element we
This phase (SD3) allows design of the steel reinforcement and can determine: cracking moment Mcr, yielding moment My, maxi-
verification of element cross-sections. Proper choice of analysis mum moment Mmax, while Mu is evaluated as a fraction of Mmax
models, which have to comply with analysis techniques and codes (Mu = 0.85 Mmax). The corresponding chord rotations (hy, hmax, hu)
applied at the time of construction, is essential. Indeed, it deter- are determined as a function of a number of mechanical/geometric
mines the forces effectively acting on each element and the conse- factors.
quent longitudinal and transversal reinforcement. In particular, following EC8 [15] indications, the yield chord
Usually, gravity load design was performed with analysis mod- rotation for the element’s extreme section hy is calculated as:
els at the element level, as in the element dimensioning phase (see
LV þ azV h db fy
Section 2.3.2); sometimes plane frame analysis was performed. hy ¼ /y þ 0:0013 1 þ 1:5 þ 0:13/y pffiffiffiffi ð10Þ
3 LV fc
Both options can be selected by the program user.
As regards seismic design, the analysis models vary according to where /y is the yield curvature, LV the shear span of the element, h
the distribution scheme of horizontal forces at each storey. Essen- the section height, fy steel yield stress and fc concrete compressive
tially, two methods are considered: strength; aVz is the tension shift of the bending moment diagram
330 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
(=0 if it is assumed that shear cracking does not precede flexural gion, the shear strength linearly decreases with the increase in
yielding at the end section). the rotational ductility demand for the element, as schematically
The chord rotation corresponding to the failure of the element is shown in Fig. 8b. This model [15] allows both brittle and low duc-
computed as reported in [15]: tile failures to be evaluated. All the cited mechanical models are
0:225 fully characterised by fc and fy.
1 maxð0:01; x0 Þ
hu ¼ 0:016 ð0:3Þm fc Nonlinear analysis for the global building model is performed in
cel maxð0:01; xÞ
0;35 fyw two phases: (i) nonlinear gravitational analysis is executed first in
LV aqsx fc order to determine the sole effect of gravity loads; (ii) pushover
25 ð1:25100 qd Þ ð11Þ
h analysis is executed for both X and Y directions using a 3d model.
Referring to vertical distribution of lateral loads the ‘‘modal” pat-
where cel = 1.0 in order to analyse mean value of ultimate chord
tern distribution is applied by default [15]:
rotation; m is the normalized axial force, x and x0 are the mechan-
ical reinforcement ratio of the tension and compression, longitudi- F hi ¼ M i /1i ð13Þ
nal reinforcement, respectively; fc and fy are the concrete
where Fhi is the horizontal force at the ith storey, Mi is the storey
compressive strength and steel yield strength; qsx the ratio of the
mass depending on gravity loads and /1i the deformed shape of first
transverse steel parallel to the direction x of loading; a is the con-
vibration mode in directions X and Y, respectively. The ‘‘uniform”
finement effectiveness factor and qd is the steel ratio of diagonal
pattern distribution, lateral forces proportional to masses, could
reinforcement in each diagonal direction.
be also selected. Although the effect of accidental eccentricity are
Peak rotation hmax, not explicitly formulated in [15], is calcu-
neglected at the present stage, they could be accounted for with a
lated in an approximate manner as a function of the corresponding
5% shift of the center of mass from its nominal location at each sto-
curvature /max and of the plastic hinge length Lpl as proposed in
rey [15].
EC8:
The capacity curve, in terms of lateral strength Vb and displace-
Lpl ment at the roof level D, is determined up to maximum lateral
hmax ¼ hy þ ð/max /y ÞLpl 1 0:5 ð12Þ
LV strength (near-collapse), consistently with the adopted mechanical
The shear strength of the generic structural element is defined models.
as the sum of three resistant mechanisms: the contribution of con- Three limit states are evidenced along the pushover curve:
crete, axial load and transversal reinforcement. In the plastic re- damage limitation, significant damage and ultimate state. Damage
1.50 1.50
M/My V/Vy
0.25 0.25
θy θmax θu
θ/θy θ/θy
0.00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Mechanical model: (a) moment–rotation relationship of the flexural model; and (b) shear capacity curve.
Δ
Vb 2
Cs = ∑miφ1i
( ∑miφ1i )2 Generic
Cs Limit State
miφ1i Δ
Cd = 2
∑miφ1i capacity curve
∑miφ1i SDOF
∑miφi
T =2π
k k
Vb Cd
Fig. 9. Capacity curve idealization for the equivalent SDOF and the corresponding capacity parameters.
G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335 331
limitation corresponds to the first attainment of h = hy for an ele- L0z ¼ 12:00 m and there are no underground levels; hence
ment; significant damage corresponds to the first attainment of L00z ¼ Daz where the foundation deepening with respect to ground
h = (0.75)(1/cel) hu for an element, with parameter cel assumed level Daz = 1.50 m is assumed. Interstorey height at the first level
cautiously as 1.5 [15]. The ultimate state corresponds to the first is equal to the upper stories az1 = (j az) = az with j = 1.
attainment between element failure, due to ultimate chord rota- For sake of simplicity, the geometric and structural solution in
tion h = 1/cel hu (flexural failure) or ultimate shear strength, and this application are constrained to the hypothesis of symmetry
global failure intended as near-collapse condition of the structure. along X direction. Given these main assignments the program
Global seismic capacity parameters, for the single limit state, starts to retrace the simulated design routines and ask for some
are determined with reference to an equivalent SDOF system, de- more inputs:
fined starting from the capacity curve of the MDOF model (real
structure). Transformation of the capacity curve into bilinear form 3.1. Geometric identification phase
[16] allows us to estimate: nonlinear strength Cs, capacity displace-
ment Cd and the period T of the SDOF structure, as shown in Fig. 9. This phase (see Section 2.1) requires the following
assignments:
3. Application example
ax 2 [3.00–6.00] m respecting common structural limitations;
This application retraces the entire process of automatic simu- av 2 [4.00–6.00] m lower bound in compliance with architec-
lated design for a building with rectangular morphologic shape, tural solutions for the stair module;
built in 1961 in a zone that was not classified as seismic (i.e. the az 2 [2.80–3.20] m in compliance with common values for build-
program automatically applies only the gravity load design meth- ings in Italy;
od). Only the exterior volume is assigned: base plant dimensions given the low building dimensions it is assumed that just one
are Lx = 27.00 m, Ly = 15.00 m; building height from the ground is stair module is present: ns = 1, as = 3.00 m.
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
(a)
Structural configuration #1
Structural configuration #2
(b)
Fig. 10. (a) Geometric configurations and (b) structural configurations.
332 G.M. Verderame et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 323–335
With these assignments the program determines two geometric the relative variables: slab way SW, number of plane frames paral-
solutions respecting the equations (1) and the symmetry hypothe- lel to slab way, np, and column orientation OR. Perimeter columns
sis. Both configurations have nz = 4 storeys and interstorey height and beams are automatically defined by the program. The follow-
az = 3.00 m except for the first level az + Daz = 4.50 m; the two solu- ing assumptions apply:
tions differ in the number of bays along directions X and Y, as
shown in Fig. 10a. slab way along transversal direction SW-Y. This choice allows
structural optimization: in fact, global linear extension of the
3.2. Structural identification phase beams is lower with respect to SW-X solution. Adopting SW-Y,
each structural configuration is characterised by a number
This phase (see Section 2.2) allows us to define, for each geo- (ny 1) of plane frames along X in addition to the perimeter
metric solution, the possible structural configurations considering frames;
Table 2
Building identification parameters.
respecting the principles of gravity load design there is no need manent and live loads are automatically chosen from the codified
to add beams (and the corresponding frames) in the other direc- database (see section SD1). Considering simple models the element
tion: npy = 0; cross-sections are dimensioned (SD2), the reinforcement is de-
as regards column orientation, both X and Y orientations are signed and the section verified (SD3); only axial load for the col-
considered for the columns without architectural constraints. umns and bending moment for the beams are considered, a = 10
is assumed for evaluation of Mmax.
With these assignments two structural solutions are deter- Minimum dimensions Bcol and Bbeam are assumed equal to
mined for each geometric one: the four structural configurations 0.30 m. Simulated design variables are listed in Table 2; combining
are shown in Fig. 10b. their possible variation with the four structural solutions a total
number of 12 structures are designed.
3.3. Simulated design Fig. 11 illustrates the first level carpentry of #3 structure, char-
acterised by six bays along X, three bays along Y and OR-X as the
For each structural configuration the simulated design (see Sec- main column orientation. In addition, transversal dimensions are
tion 2.3) is performed to comply with codes in force in 1961. Per- shown for both the columns and the beams; as can be noted the
1200
Base shear, Vb [kN] damage limitation
significant damage
1000
ultimate state
near collapse
800
600
400
200
1200
Base shear, Vb [kN] damage limitation
significant damage
1000
ultimate state
near collapse
800
600
400
200
central columns have greater transversal section (30 45) cm with hand, in the transversal direction the building collapses due to ele-
respect to the corner ones (30 30) cm, confirming the different ment failure (rotational ultimate state); as can be seen the near-
axial load acting on these elements. Also, interior beams have collapse state is reached after much larger displacements.
greater height and reinforcement with respect to perimeter beams. The program automatically computes, for each considered limit
Seismic capacity is evaluated for each of the 12 structures. state, the capacity parameters for the SDOF equivalent to the real
Thanks to complete geometric and structural definition, it is possi- MDOF system: the capacity strength Cs, the capacity displacement
ble to define the characteristic curves in flexural and shear for all Cd and the effective period T. Tables 3 and 4 show these parameters
the elements (see section 2.4). With regard to material properties, both for longitudinal and transverse directions. As can be seen, the
we assume a concrete compressive strength fc = 20 MPa and steel behavior differs in the two directions both in the elastic phase and
yield strength fy ¼ 2r
s , that is 360 and 400 MPa. Due to the beam’s in the nonlinear field: the strength Cs and stiffness are higher (low-
limited flexural strength, column capacity curves are determined er elastic period T) for the longitudinal direction at the damage
for fixed axial force corresponding to gravity load and kept con- limitation state. The same trend is confirmed for near-collapse;
stant during the analysis. Element capacity is determined at the in particular, the Cs scatter decreases whereas the T scatter in-
three limit states: damage limitation, significant damage and ulti- creases with displacement.
mate state. On intersecting the identification parameters of Table 2 with
Distinct pushover analyses along directions Y and X are per- the capacity parameters shown in Tables 3 and 4 the effect of the
formed for each structure; Figs. 12 and 13 show the pushover identification parameters on global capacity may be examined.
curves for transversal and longitudinal directions, respectively. As can be noted, the different assumptions for the structural iden-
The significant points corresponding to the considered limit states tification phase lead to capacity variation with a CoV up to 15%.
and structural near-collapse are evidenced along the curves. Bay number (nx, ny) influences both the base shear coefficient Cs
It can be noted, as it could be expected, that the building has and the equivalent period T; on augmenting the bay number Cs in-
higher lateral strength in the longitudinal direction and that the creases and T decreases. The same trend applies to column orienta-
damage limitation state is attained for higher base shear with re- tion; however, OR importance increases with storey number. Last
spect to direction Y. Moreover, along the longitudinal direction but not least, the design parameters, allowable stresses for con-
structural collapse always corresponds to near-collapse state but crete r c and steel r
s : with increases in these stresses the transver-
the structural elements are not significantly damaged. On the other sal sections of the structural elements decrease, with the
Table 3
Capacity parameters in transversal direction (Y).
Table 4
Capacity parameters in longitudinal direction (X).