Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Influence of strain rate on the seismic response of RC structures

Domenico Asprone ⇑, Raffaele Frascadore, Marco Di Ludovico, Andrea Prota, Gaetano Manfredi
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples ‘‘Federico II’’, via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: At the strain rate levels induced by seismic excitations, dynamic properties of concrete and reinforcing
Received 29 June 2011 steel exhibit non-negligible increases if compared with the values exhibited under quasi-static properties.
Revised 13 October 2011 This is expected to change the mechanical behavior of structural systems, under seismic loading condi-
Accepted 22 October 2011
tions. The work here presented aims to appreciate the influence of strain rate sensitivity of concrete
Available online 7 January 2012
and reinforcing steel on the global seismic response of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. In order to
assess the influence of the strain-rate, first (a) the modified material properties are used to derive
Keywords:
moment–curvature relationships of a generic RC cross section, then (b) the seismic fragility of a 2D RC
Seismic strain rate
Seismic assessment
frame structure is derived accounting for seismic strain rate modified material properties, and (c) the seis-
Moment–curvature relationships mic assessment of a real 3D RC frame structure at the significant damage (SD) limit state is conducted in
Seismic fragility curves both cases of quasi-static material properties and strain rate modified material properties. The results
shows that considering updated material properties, to account for earthquake induced strain rate, a
strength reserve of the structural system is experienced when only ductile failure mechanisms are
accounted for; on the other hand, a reduction of the structural capacity is obtained when brittle failure
mechanisms are included.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Dynamic properties of construction materials, including concrete
and steel, are widely illustrated and discussed in experimental
mechanics literature. In particular, the interest is mainly focused
on high strain rate conditions, as those experienced in structural
elements, in case of high impact, explosions or any other rapid and
intense loading condition [1–3]. However, in experimental mechan-
ics works, significant differences in the mechanical behavior of
materials are evidenced also between quasi-static and medium
strain rate conditions, as those experienced in case of low impact
or seismic loading conditions [1]. Even in these cases, in fact, signif-
icant increases of strength and ultimate strain values, if compared
with those from quasi-static strain rate conditions, can be appreci-
ated. On the other hand, in seismic engineering community, the
influence of strain rate on structural response in case of seismic load-
ing has been evidenced [1,4–7]. However, no comprehensive studies
are available in the literature, aimed at quantifying strain rate effect
on seismic response of structures, even if these differences are ex-
pected to provide a strength reserve. Actually, in seismic engineer-
ing community this issue has been sometimes raised, to discuss
about the capability of the pseudo-dynamic test method to simulate
seismic excitations on structures [4]; in this case, the induced strain
rate on materials has been considered as one of the reasons to prefer
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 081 7683672; fax: +39 081 7685921.
E-mail address: d.asprone@unina.it (D. Asprone).
shaking table tests, where the actual strain rate induced by earth-
quake excitation can be experienced, instead of pseudo-dynamic
tests [8], where loads are quasi-statically applied on the tested struc-
tures. The scope of this paper is to try to quantify the effect of the
strain rate sensitiveness of concrete and reinforcing steel into the
structural performance of a reinforced concrete (RC) structure, sub-
jected to seismic hazard. To do this, typical strain rate dependent
stress–strain relationships have been considered for both concrete
and reinforcing steel. Actually, as specified in the following sections,
the formulations used were derived from experimental tests con-
ducted in case of monotonic loading conditions. Indeed, this could
limit the results of the following analyses to the case of near-field
earthquakes, characterized by an initial dominant pulse. However,
in the literature no specific formulations are available reporting
the strain rate sensitivity of materials, in case of cyclic loading con-
ditions. Nevertheless, formulations derived for monotonic loading
conditions were used anyway, aiming at just appreciating the influ-
ence of the strain rate sensitivity of materials in the seismic response
of RC structures. In particular, three different analyses have been
conducted:
 The moment–curvature relationships, at different normalized
axial loads, have been derived for a generic RC cross section,
for different earthquake-induced strain rate levels and at the
quasi-static strain rate.
 The seismic fragility of a 2D frame structure has been derived at
different earthquake-induced strain rate levels and at the quasi-
static strain rate; the structure belongs to an existing structure,

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.025
30 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36

located in L’Aquila, Italy and damaged by the L’Aquila earth-
quake in 2009. In particular, a pushover analysis has been con-
ducted on the multi degree of freedom (MDOF) frame structure
and an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of the equivalent
single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure have been performed
at each of the considered strain rate levels [9,10].
 A seismic assessment has been conducted on the entire existing
structure, introduced in the previous item, at the SD limit state,
through static non-linear analysis. The demand capacity ratios
have been evaluated for both ductile and brittle failure mecha-
nisms, at the quasi-static strain rate and at the strain rate
induced by the L’Aquila earthquake.
2. Dynamic properties of concrete and reinforcing steel
Strain rate sensitivity of concrete is amply discussed in the
literature [1,2,11–19]. Available experimental data show that, in
dynamic loading conditions, concrete can exhibit, under both
compression and tensile loads:
 0:02
ecud e_
DIF ec ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
ecus e_ 0;2
where ecud is the dynamic compression ultimate strain; ecus is the
static compression ultimate strain; e_ is the strain rate; e_ 0;2 is a con-
stant equal to 30  106 s1.
In case of reinforcing steel, as experienced with many other
metallic materials, dynamic mechanical behavior presents signifi-
cant differences if compared with mechanical behavior exhibited
under static load conditions. This is due to several phenomena in-
volved in steel strain-rate sensitivity, but mainly the reason of such
differences stands in the dynamic dislocations evolution, affecting
the microscopic scale [1,22]. Available scientific data outline that,
as strain rate increases, the following changes in mechanical prop-
erties of reinforcing steel can be noticed [1,23–29]:
 an increase of yielding stress fy;
 an increase of ultimate tensile stress ft;
 an increase of the ultimate tensile strain et;

 an increase in failure stress [2]; On the contrary no changes are experienced in terms of Young’s
 a moderate increase in Young’s modulus [2,17,20,21]; modulus.
 a different evolution of cracks [17]. Also in this case, CEB Information Bulletin No. 187 provides for-
mulations to predict the DIF for the steel yielding stress. In partic-
These dynamic properties are also considered by several techni- ular, in case of hot rolled reinforcing steel the following expression
cal codes or instructions, to properly predict the real behavior of a is given:
structure under extreme loads. CEB Information Bulletin No. 187
[18] gives formulations to evaluate the dynamic properties of con-
fyd 6:0 e_
DIF fy ¼ ¼1þ ln ð6Þ
crete by updating static properties. Dynamic increase factor (DIF) fys fys e0;3
_
– strain rate relationships are suggested for compressive and tensile
where fyd is the dynamic yielding stress; fys is the static yielding
strength values and compression ultimate strain values, being DIF
stress; e_ is the strain rate; e_ 0;3 is a constant equal to 5  105 s1.
the ratio of the dynamic properties values on the static ones.
In the following sections, the presented CEB bulletin formula-
For tensile failure stress increase, CEB relationships providing
tions are used to derive the non-linear cross section properties of
the DIFft values are the following:
RC members to be used in the non-linear analysis for the seismic
 1:016d
ftde_ assessment of a generic frame structure. To do this, the seismic
DIF ft ¼ ¼ for e_ 6 30 s1 ð1Þ strain rate needs to be introduced. Actually, the strain rate experi-
_e0
fts
 13 enced by a generic RC structure during seismic excitation depends
ftd e_ on the ground motion and on the dynamic properties of the struc-
DIF ft ¼ ¼ g for e_ > 30 s1 ð2Þ
fts e_ 0 ture and, furthermore, strain rate varies during seismic excitation.
where, ftd is the dynamic tensile strength; fts is the static tensile However, dynamic properties of materials can be reliably evalu-
strength; e_ is the strain rate; e_ 0 is a constant equal to 3  106 s1. ated given the order of magnitude of the strain rate, which remains
And log g ¼ 7:11d  2:33, constant during a seismic excitation and depends on the intensity
of the earthquake event, varying from 103 s1, for typical intensity
1
where d ¼ ; earthquakes, to 101 s1, for particularly severe earthquakes [6,7].
10 þ 6 ffcs0 For this reason, to appreciate the influence of the strain-rate
fcs is the static compression strength; f0 is a constant equal to sensitivity of materials into the seismic response of a generic RC
10 MPa. structure, the numerical analyses presented in the following sec-
For compression failure stress increase, CEB relationships pro- tions are repeated for three different values of strain rate
viding the DIFfc values are the following: (103 s1, 102 s1 and 101 s1) and for the static strain rate.
 1:026a
fcde_
DIF fc ¼ ¼ for e_ 6 30 s1 ð3Þ 3. Sectional behavior
e_ 0
fcs
 13
ftd e_ The presented CEB formulations are used to update the design
DIF fc ¼ ¼ c for e_ > 30 s1 ð4Þ
fts e_ 0 properties of concrete and reinforcing steel, at the considered strain
rate values, i.e. the concrete tensile failure stress, compressive
where fcd is the dynamic compression strength; fcs is the static com-
failure stress and ultimate strain and the steel yielding stress. No
pression strength; e_ is the strain rate; e_ 0 is a constant equal to
variation in the concrete Young’s modulus was introduced, since it
3  106 s1.
would have resulted in negligible variations. Actually, even the ulti-
And log c ¼ 6:16a  2:00,
mate tensile strain of steel depends on the strain rate and the CEB
1 bulletin provides specific formulations, in order to calculate the
where a ¼ ;
5 þ 9 ffcs0 strain rate dependent values. However, since both bending moment
and shear capacity models, hereafter adopted, do not consider steel
f0 is a constant equal to 10 MPa or 1450 psi. failure, these formulations are not introduced. To appreciate the
Finally, for compression ultimate strain increase, CEB relation- influence of the strain rate sensitivity into the moment–curvature
ship providing the DIFeu value is the following: relationship, a square RC cross section of 250 mm of dimension
 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36 31

Table 1 linear moment–curvature relationship have been derived evaluat-

Modified material properties. ing the points at which concrete cracking, steel yielding and con-
Strain Concrete Steel Concrete Concrete crete failure occur, for different values of normalized axial load m,
rate compression yielding ultimate tensile (m = N/Acfcs being N the applied axial load and Ac the concrete gross
(s1) strength (MPa) stress (MPa) strain (#) strength (MPa) area), equal to 0.0, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.50 (Fig. 1). It can be observed that
Quasi- static 16.6 320 0.0035 both ultimate bending moment and ultimate curvature significantly
1.3 increase at larger values of strain rate. In particular, this effect is
103 19.9 338 0.0038 1.7
102 22.4 352 0.0039 1.9
more significant for larger values of normalized axial load. From
101 25.2 366 0.0041 2.1 these results it can be argued that strain rate sensitivity of concrete
and reinforcing steel affect positively the non-linear capacity of RC
sections, in particular with applied axial loads, as in case of columns.
has been considered. As internal reinforcement 4 steel bars of
12 mm of diameter, one at each corner, have been considered, with 4. Strain rate dependent seismic fragility
a cover of 30 mm. The material properties for each strain rate value
are reported in Table 1. It can be observed that significant increases The case study structure is a 2D frame structure, composed by
are experienced for concrete tensile strength, i.e. the maximum four floors and two spans, depicted in Fig. 2, belonging to an existing
values is nearly 2 times the quasi-static value, and concrete com- structure located in L’Aquila, Italy. Table 2 reports the cross section
pression strength. The stress block model and the elastic–plastic dimensions and the internal reinforcement area for the elements la-
model with no hardening has been used for concrete and steel, beled in Fig. 2. Concrete and reinforcing steel properties are those al-
respectively, according to Eurocode 2 formulations [30]. Three- ready presented in previous paragraph for the considered cross

Fig. 1. Moment–curvature relationships at different strain rate values, for m equal to 0.0 (a), 0.1 (b), 0.25 (c) and 0.5 (d).
32 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36

42 kN/m N 42 kN/m the Eurocode 8 [30] for the existing structures have been used.
The pushover curve or roof displacement versus the base shear for
C F E the analyzed structure is evaluated up to the point at which the first
M N M
element in the structure reaches its ultimate rotation capacity. The
3.60
pushover curves related to the MDOF system are depicted in Fig. 3. It
74 kN/m L 74 kN/m can be observed that the increasing strain rate leads to larger values
C F E
of both maximum base shear and ultimate displacement. It is under-
C F E lined that in all the pushover analyses, conducted at each strain rate
I L I
3.60
level, failure occurred in the plastic hinge highlighted in Fig. 2, at the
fixed end of the column element. Then, the obtained pushover
74 kN/m L 74 kN/m
C F E curves are used to determine the equivalent elastic-perfectly plastic
SDOF system using a procedure recommended in [30]. In the second
C D E
I L I step a suite of 50 natural ground motion accelerations are applied to
3.60 the equivalent elastic–plastic SDOF system based on the incremen-
H tal dynamic analysis or the multiple-stripe analysis procedures
C 74 kN/m D 74 kN/m E [9,10]. Based on these non-linear analysis procedures, the suite of
A B A ground motion records are scaled to increasing levels of peak ground
G H G
acceleration (PGA) and applied to the structure. At each spectral
acceleration level, the probability of structural failure was estimated
5.60 as the ratio of the number of records that lead to a maximum dis-
placement of the SDOF system exceeding the capacity displacement,
over the total number of records (i.e. 50). The capacity displacement
A B A values for the SDOF system are listed in Table 3 for each strain rate
Z value. The obtained fragility curves are plotted in Fig. 4, showing the
probability of failure at each PGA level versus the PGA. It can be ob-
6.35 6.35
served that as the strain rate increases the probability of collapse be-
X Y comes lower. In particular, for common PGA values, a 30% reduction
of the probability of collapse occurs, for a strain rate value of
Fig. 2. 2D case study structure: geometry and gravity loads in the seismic condition
101 s1. This was a remarkable result; actually, the increasing
on beams.
strain rate leads to higher mechanical properties of materials, that
is a more resistant structure, but also to a stiffer behavior of the
structural system, with lower vibration period and higher seismic
section. The first vibration period of the structural system is 0.64 s. forces acting on the structure.
The seismic fragility for the case-study structure is calculated in It is underlined that in this case, the conducted analysis does
two steps. In the first step, a non-linear static analysis is performed not account for brittle failure mechanisms. In fact, the SDOF system
on the structural model based on the lumped flexural capacity mod- has been derived from a pushover curve where only ductile failure
el. To characterize the flexural capacity through moment–rotation has been considered. Instead, the influence of the strain rate sensi-
relationships of the plastic hinges, the formulations provided by tiveness of materials on brittle mechanisms is investigated in the

Table 2
Cross section properties of the 2D structural model.

Section B (cm) H (cm) As,sup (cm2) As,inf (cm2) As,l (cm2) As,r (cm2)
A 70 70 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18
B 70 70 12.72 12.72 12.72 12.72
C 70 65 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18
D 60 60 12.72 12.72 12.72 12.72
E 70 60 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18
F 60 60 10.18 10.18 10.18 10.18
G 40 90 34.56 15.71 6.28 6.28
H 40 90 37.70 15.71 6.28 6.28
I 40 80 34.56 15.71 6.28 6.28
L 40 80 37.70 15.71 6.28 6.28
M 60 70 18.85 12.57 6.28 6.28
N 60 70 28.27 12.57 6.28 6.28

The reported properties refer to the cross section scheme here depicted.
 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36 33

900

800

700

600
Base Shear [kN]

500

400

300

quasi-static
200 10^-3*s^-1
10^-2*s^-1
100 10^-1*s^-1

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Displacements [m]

Fig. 3. MDOF pushover curve.

Table 3 following section, where both shear and flexural capacity of ele-
Case study SDOF failure displacement.
ments are considered.
Strain rate (s1) Displacement
capacity (cm)
5. Strain rate dependent seismic assessment
Quasi-static 8.2
103 8.7
102 9.3 The considered structure is located in L’Aquila, Italy; it was built
101 9.9 in 1960 and was damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009. The

0.9

0.8

0.7 quasi-static
10 -3 s -1
0.6 10 -2 s -1
10 -1 s -1
Pcollapse

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PGA [m/s2]

Fig. 4. Fragility curves. Fig. 5. View case study structure.

34 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36

Fig. 6. Plan view of the third floor (dimensions in m).

structure is a RC frame structure, composed by 4 floors. The mate- strain rate is needed, since the mechanical properties of materials
rial properties are those presented in Table 1. Fig. 5 depicts a view are affected by the variations of the order of magnitude of the
of the building, whereas Fig. 6 reports a storey view of the third strain rate. Thus, the pushover analyses were repeated for the
floor. It can be observed that both the elevation and the planar con- structure assuming the material properties at a strain rate of
figuration is highly irregular. To assess the seismic performance of 102 s1. It is underlined that, also in this case, the increase in
the structure at the SD limit state non-linear static analyses were
Table 4
conducted. In particular, according to Eurocode 8 provisions [31], Displacement demand and capacity results for SD limit state in case of quasi-static
8 pushover analyses for each direction were performed, accounting strain rate.
for the eccentricity of the live loads and considering the ‘‘uniform’’
Force Direction Displacement Displacement dc/dd
and the ‘‘modal’’ force pattern. According to Eurocode 8 provisions, pattern capacity dc (cm) demand dd (cm) (#)
for each pushover analysis, the capacity displacement was derived
Uniform X 7.1 6.94 1.02
as the displacement value at which ultimate rotation or storey
8.2 7.05 1.16
mechanism occurs in the structure; demand displacement was also 7.1 7.00 1.01
derived, accounting for the L’Aquila spectral displacement hazard. 8.2 7.11 1.15
These analyses were conducted in two cases: (a) assuming the qua- Y 10.9 8.78 1.24
11.1 8.69 1.28
si-static properties of materials and (b) assuming the material
10.9 8.74 1.25
properties resulting from the strain rate enhancement, at the strain 11.1 8.67 1.28
rate level induced by the seismic excitation. To define the strain
Modal X 8.6 8.60 1.00
rate level to consider, the following assumptions were made. Actu- 7.5 8.68 0.86
ally, the strain rate experienced by the structural elements during a 8.7 8.72 1.00
seismic excitation is spatial and time varying, but material proper- 7.7 8.76 0.88
ties are mainly influenced by the order of magnitude of the strain Y 11.02 10.29 1.07
11.58 10.39 1.11
rate. Hence, to characterize the strain rate experienced during the
11.02 10.19 1.08
L’Aquila earthquake a rough estimation was conducted. At the first 11.58 10.34 1.12
vibration period of the structure (equal to 0.68 s) the pseudo-spec-
tral velocity PSV and the pseudo-spectral displacement PSD of the
L’Aquila earthquake record were considered, equal to 54 cm/s
and 5.6 cm, respectively [32]. An average velocity of the structure Table 5
V during the seismic excitation, equal to one half of PSV (assuming Displacement demand and capacity results for SD limit state in case of seismic strain
rate.
a linear variation of the velocity in time), was considered, equal to
27 cm/s. The time to reach the maximum displacement Tmax can be Force Direction Displacement Displacement dc/dd D
calculated as: pattern capacity dc (cm) demand dd (cm) (#) (%)
Uniform X 8.10 5.02 1.61 58
PSD 5:6 8.40 4.90 1.72 48
T max ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:21 s ð7Þ
V 27 8.10 5.02 1.61 59
8.40 4.90 1.72 50
Then, it can be assumed that, when the maximum displacement is Y 11.80 6.60 1.79 44
achieved the maximum strain emax is equal to almost 0.004, being 11.90 6.54 1.82 42
the maximum strain of concrete at the highest strain rate, as re- 11.80 6.60 1.79 43
11.90 6.54 1.82 42
ported in Table 1. Hence, assuming again a linear variation of the
strain rate in time, the strain rate can be approximated as: Modal X 9.00 5.71 1.58 58
8.55 5.97 1.43 66
emax 0:004 9.15 5.77 1.59 59
e_ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:019 s1  102 s1 ð8Þ 8.85 6.06 1.46 66
T max 0:21
Y 12.10 7.83 1.54 44
As an alternative Tmax could also be evaluated as a quarter of the 12.60 7.80 1.62 46
12.10 7.83 1.54 43
first vibration period, i.e. Tmax = 0.68 s/4 = 0.17 s leading to a
12.60 7.80 1.62 45
similar strain rate value. However only a rough estimation of the
 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36 35

Table 6
Shear demand and capacity results for SD limit state in case of quasi-static and seismic strain rate.

Force pattern Direction Shear capacity demand ratio at the quasi-static strain Shear capacity demand ratio at the seismic strain D (%)
rate (#) rate (#)
Columns Beams Columns Beams Columns (%) Beams (%)
Uniform X 1.06 0.43 0.98 0.48 7.55 11.63
1.06 0.43 0.98 0.49 7.55 13.95
1.08 0.42 0.98 0.48 9.26 14.29
1.08 0.42 0.98 0.49 9.26 16.67
Y 1.08 0.33 0.98 0.34 9.26 3.03
1.08 0.33 0.98 0.35 9.26 6.06
1.07 0.32 0.98 0.34 8.41 6.25
1.07 0.32 0.98 0.35 8.41 9.37
Modal X 1.06 0.42 1.06 0.49 0.00 16.67
1.06 0.42 1.06 0.47 0.00 11.90
1.07 0.43 1.07 0.49 0.00 13.95
1.07 0.43 1.07 0.48 0.00 11.63
Y 1.00 0.31 0.93 0.33 7.00 6.45
1.00 0.31 0.93 0.33 7.00 6.45
1.00 0.31 0.93 0.33 7.00 6.45
1.00 0.31 0.93 0.33 7.00 6.45

the concrete Young’s modulus induced by the seismic strain rate
was not considered, since it would have resulted in a negligible
reduction of the vibration period of the structure. The results of
the two sets of pushover analysis, for the quasi-static and the seis-
mic strain rate of 102 s1, were processed in terms of displace-
ment demand-capacity ratio, reported in Tables 4 and 5 for the
quasi-static and seismic strain rate, respectively. It can be observed
that the displacement demand-capacity ratio increases from the
quasi-static case to the seismic case, as highlighted in Table 5,
revealing that, as it was obtained in the 2D case study structure,
strain rate results in an improvement of the structural
performance.
Furthermore, in order to deal with brittle failure mechanisms,
for each pushover analysis, the shear forces acting on structural
elements at the ductile demand step, were evaluated and com-
pared with the corresponding shear frame capacity values, evalu-
ated according to Eurocode 8 part 3 formulations [31]. Among all
the frame elements, for beams and columns, the minimum ratio
of shear capacity over shear demand has been derived and re-
ported in Table 6, for both quasi-static and seismic strain rate. It
can be observed that strain rate results in a reduction of the struc-
tural performance for columns, leading to lower values of the shear
6000
capacity-demand ratio, whereas in case of beams, capacity demand
ratios slightly increase from the quasi-static to the seismic strain
rate case. In fact, even if the modified material properties resulted
in higher shear frame capacity values, on the other side, also higher
shear forces act on frame elements, in the seismic strain rate case.
This is due to an increase of the effective period T⁄ of the SDOF sys-
tem; this can be observed in Fig. 7, where, as an example, the
equivalent SDOF pushover curves for one of the x direction uniform
pattern cases, obtained for the quasi-static and the seismic strain
rate analysis, are plotted with the bilinear SDOF force–displace-
ment curve and where the effective period T⁄ is also labeled. This
stiffer behavior in case of seismic strain rate is mainly caused by
higher values of the plastic hinge yielding moment, specially in col-
umns. In fact, in the pushover analysis, plastic hinges are activated
later in the seismic strain-rate case than in the quasi-static case,
due to the increased properties of steel reinforcement. Further-
more, in columns, according to Eurocode 8 part 3 formulation,
shear capacity value includes a contribution of the acting axial
loads, not depending on material properties; hence, the increase
in shear capacity is lower in columns than in beams, since the en-
hanced properties of materials due to strain rate do not affect the
axial loads contribution. Thus, in columns, unlike beams, the in-
crease in acting shear forces is higher than the increase in the shear
capacity.

6. Conclusions
5000
T*= 0.586 s Dynamic properties of materials are widely investigated in im-
pact engineering field, where experienced strain-rate on materials
Base Shear [kN]

4000 are very large; on the contrary, in seismic engineering, where dy-
T*= 0.810 s namic conditions are less severe, even if experienced strain rate
values appear to provide non-negligible modifications in material
3000
properties, strain rate sensitivity of materials is not accounted for
in structural analysis. In this paper the authors implemented CEB
2000 formulations for the evaluation of the dynamic properties of mate-
rials, at the earthquake induced strain rate levels, into a seismic
Equivalent SDOF, dynamic strain rate assessment procedure, with the scope to appreciate the influence
1000 Bilinear SDOF, dynamic strain rate
of strain-rate sensitivity of material on the structural response of
Equivalent SDOF, quasi-static strain rate
Bilinear SDOF, quasi-static strain rate
an existing RC structure. The main outcomes of this activity are
the moment–curvature relationships derived at different normal-
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
ized axial loads for a generic RC cross section, the seismic fragility
Displacements [m] curves and the seismic assessment results obtained for an existing
RC structure. From these results, the following observations can be
Fig. 7. X direction uniform pattern SDOF pushover curves. made:
36 D. Asprone et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 29–36
 Modified material properties for both concrete and steel are sig-
nificantly different from the quasi-static ones; this results in
significantly different moment–curvature relationships, pre-
senting larger values of ultimate bending moment and ultimate
curvature, both increasing of about the 20% of the quasi-static
values, at typical earthquake induced strain rate.
 Higher values of maximum base shear and ultimate displace-
ment are obtained from static nonlinear analysis.
 Deriving the fragility curves from the 2D case study structure,
lower probability of collapse are obtained in case of grater val-
ues of strain rate, for each PGA level; in particular up to 30% of
reduction of the probability of collapse is obtained, for a strain
rate value of 101 s1, if only ductile failure are considered.
 The seismic assessment of the entire structure, performed
through nonlinear static analysis, reveals that seismic strain
rate results in an increase in the structural performance, where
only ductile failure mechanisms are considered, but where brit-
tle failure mechanisms are included a decrease of the structural
performance is experienced in columns, whereas a slight
increase occurs in beams.
Actually, authors want to emphasize that the models used in
structural and seismic engineering (including non-linear behavior
of cross sections and frame structural systems) are calibrated from
the quasi-static values of the material properties; hence the exten-
sion of these models to the modified material properties, account-
ing for the strain rate effects could be not rigorous. However, the
scope of the presented analyses is to point out the influence of
the dynamic regime induced by seismic excitation into the struc-
tural response and to try to appreciate the variation in the struc-
tural performance provided by the strain rate sensitivity of
materials in case of seismic loading conditions. Nonetheless, it is
underlined that, in the analyses here presented, different simplifi-
cations have been introduced and no structural deterioration due
to load reversals and cracking have been considered; hence, the ob-
tained results cannot prove additional margins of safety under
seismic actions due to strain-rate effects.
References
[1] Mainstone RJ. Properties of materials at high rates of straining or loading, part
4, state-of-the-art report on impact loading of structures. Materials and
Structures 1975;8(44):102–16.
[2] Malvar LJ, Ross CA. Review of strain-rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI
Mater J 1998;95:735–9.
[3] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. John Wiley and Sons; 1192. p. 745.
[4] Shing PSB, Mahin SA. Pseudodynamic test method for seismic performance
evaluation: theory and implementation. In: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report UCB/EERC-84/01, University of California, Berkeley; 1984. p.
153.
[5] Filiatrault A, Holleran M. Stress–strain behavior of reinforcing steel and
concrete under seismic strain rates and low temperatures. Mater Struct
2001;34:235–9.
[6] Soroushian P, Obaseki K. Strain rate–dependent interaction diagram for
reinforced concrete section. ACI J 1986;83:108–16.
[7] Al Haddad MS. Curvature ductility of reinforced concrete beams under low and
high strain rates. ACI Struct J 1995;92:526–34.
[8] Nakashima M. Development, potential, and limitations of real-time online
(pseudo-dynamic) testing. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 2001;359:1851–67.
[9] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 2002;21m(3):491–514.
[10] Jalayer F. Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear
dynamic assessments, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil Environment
Engineering, Stanford University; 2003. p. 150.
[11] Fu HC, Erki MA, Seckin M. Review of effects of loading rate on concrete in
compression. J Struct Eng 1991;117:3645–59.
[12] Harris DW, Mohorovic CE, Dolen TP. Dynamic properties of mass concrete
obtained from dam cores. ACI Mater J 2000;97:290–6.
[13] Asprone D, Cadoni E, Prota A. Experimental analysis on the tensile dynamic
behavior of existing concrete under high strain-rates. ACI Struct J
2009;106(1):106–13. January–February.
[14] Ross CA, Tedesco JW, Kuennen ST. Effects of strain rate on concrete strength.
ACI Mater J 1995;92(1):37–47.
[15] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Moisture and strain rate effects
on concrete strength 1996;93(3):293–300.
[16] Asprone D, Cadoni E, Prota A, Manfredi G. Dynamic behavior of a
mediterranean natural stone under tensile loading. Int J Rock Mech Mining
Sci 2009;46(3):514–20.
[17] Cadoni E, Labibes K, Berra M, Giangrasso M, Albertini C. High strain-rate tensile
behaviour of concrete. Mag Concrete Res 2000;52(5):365–70.
[18] Comité Euro-International du Béton. Concrete structures under impact and
impulsive loading. Lausanne, Switzerland: CEB Bulletin 187; 1988.
[19] Cadoni E, Albertini C, Solomos G. Analysis of the concrete behavior in tension
at high strain-rate by a modified Hopkinson bar in support of impact resistant
structural design. J Phys 2006;3:647–52.
[20] Toutlemonde F, Boulay C, Rossi P. High strain-rate tensile behaviour of
concrete: significant parameters. In: Proceedings of second international
conference on ‘‘Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures’’
FRAMCOS-2. Freiburg, Germany, 2005.
[21] van Doormal JCAM, Weerheijn J, Sluys LJ. Experimental and numerical
determination of the dynamic fracture energy of concrete. J Phys
1994;4:501–6.
[22] Asprone D, Cadoni E, Prota A. Tensile high strain rate behavior of reinforcing
steel from an existing bridge. ACI Struct J 2009;106(4):523–9. July–August.
[23] Uenishi A, Teodosiu A. Constitutive modelling of the high strain-rate behaviour
of interstitial-free steel. Int J Plast 2004;20:915–36.
[24] Comité Euro-International du Béton. Concrete structures under impact and
impulsive loading. Lausanne, Switzerland: CEB Bulletin 187; 1988.
[25] Malvar LJ. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars.
ACI Mater J 1998;95:609–16.
[26] Lee WS, Lin C-F, Chen B-T. Tensile properties and microstructural aspects of
304L stainless steel weldments as a function of strain rate and temperature.
Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2005;219:439–51.
[27] Couque H, Leung CP, Hudak Jr SJ. Effect of planar size and dynamic loading rate
on initiation and propagation toughness of a moderate-toughness steel. Eng
Fract Mech 1994;47:249–67.
[28] Drar H. On predicting the temperature and strain rate dependences of the
fracture toughness of plain carbon steels. Mater Charact 1993;31:91–7.
[29] Wang GZ, Wang YL. Effects of loading rate, notch geometry and loading mode
on the local cleavage fracture stress of a C–Mn steel. Int J Fract
2007;146:105–21.
[30] Comité Européen de Normalisation. Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures
– Part 1: general rules and rules for buildings, EN 1992. Brussels: CEN; 2004.
[31] Comité Européen de Normalisation. Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for
earthquake resistance EN 1998. Brussels: CEN; 2004.
[32] Chiarabba C, Amato A, Anselmi M, Chiaraluce L, Ciaccio MG, DeGori P. 2009.
The 2009 L’Aquila (central Italy) Mw 6.3 earthquake: main shock and
aftershocks. Geophys Res Lett 2009; 36. doi: 10.1029/2009GL039627.