Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799

DOI 10.1007/s10518-009-9119-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Seismic response of a RC frame building designed
according to old and modern practices
Matej Rozman Peter Fajfar
Received: 6 August 2008 / Accepted: 25 April 2009 / Published online: 16 May 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract In the paper the seismic response of different variants of the three-story
reinforced concrete frame structure SPEAR is compared. The basic structure is represen-
tative of building practice before the adoption of seismic codes. This structure has been
compared with four modied variants, which were designed partly or completely in accor-
dance with the Eurocode family of standards. For seismic assessment the practice-oriented
nonlinear N2 method was used. The results demonstrate the low seismic resistance of build-
ings designed for gravity loads only. On the other hand, the advantages of new standards
are clearly apparent. By taking into account the requirements of Eurocode 8 it is possible to
ensure adequate strength, stiffness and ductility. By means of capacity design it is possible
to ensure a global plastic mechanism. All these characteristics contribute to the high seismic
resistance of structures designed according to Eurocode 8 and to their satisfactory behaviour
during earthquakes.
Keywords RC frame building Pushover analysis N2 method Seismic assessment
Eurocode 8 SPEAR building
1 Introduction
The implementation of the Eurocode standards is presently a topic of great interest in
numerous European countries. The main aimof this paper is to study the effect of the require-
ments of the newstandard Eurocode 8 (EC8) on the seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
(RC) structures in comparison with the older construction practice. A three-storey asymmet-
ric RC frame structure was selected as a test case. A comparison is provided of the seismic
M. Rozman P. Fajfar (B)
Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Institute of Structural Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering and Construction IT, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: pfajfar@ikpir.fgg.uni-lj.si
M. Rozman
e-mail: mrozman@ikpir.fgg.uni-lj.si
123
780 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
response of ve different variants of this structure. The basic building, denoted as Test, was
pseudo-dynamically tested in full scale at the ELSA laboratory in Ispra. It was designed for
vertical loads only. The basic model was compared with the variants Test 0.15 and Test
0.25. These two variants were designed for the same vertical load, geometry, and dimensions
of the load-bearing elements according to Eurocode 8 (EC 8-1 2004), using the spectrum for
ground type C. The rst was designed for a design ground acceleration (on rock, i.e. ground
type A) of 0.15g, and the second for a design ground acceleration of 0.25g. Considering the
soil factor for ground type C (S = 1.15), the peak ground accelerations amounted to 0.17
and 0.29g for the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25, respectively. Since the original dimensions
of the structural elements were not changed, it was not possible to ensure fulfilment of the
condition of global and local ductility, which is required by the standard. For this reason the
variants EC8 M and EC8 H were also studied. They were designed entirely in accordance
with the requirements of the standard. For this purpose, it was necessary to increase the size
of the columns and to adjust the dimensions of the beams. Both variants were designed for a
design ground acceleration of 0.25g (on rock). Again, ground type C was assumed, resulting
in a peak ground acceleration of 0.29g. In the case of EC8 M, the medium ductility class
(DCM) was taken into account, whereas in the case of EC8 H the high ductility class (DCH)
was selected. Apart from the comparisons of behaviour under seismic loading, comparisons
were also made of the quantity of concrete and longitudinal reinforcement for all the analysed
structures, which made it possible to estimate the effect of the new standards on the cost of
the structure. The seismic assessment was performed with the practice-oriented nonlinear
N2 method (Fajfar 1999, 2000).
The paper contributes to the evaluation of EC8. Many more systematic evaluations of the
performance of RC buildings designed with EC8, like those performed in (Panagiotakos and
Fardis 2004; Magliulo et al. 2007) are needed before all the implications of the new standard
on the seismic behaviour and costs of RC structures will be fully understood.
2 Description of the building and the loading
The investigated three-storey plan-asymmetric structure (Fig. 1) was conceived as representa-
tive of older construction in Southern European countries, but without engineered earthquake
resistance. It was designed for vertical loads only, with the construction practice and materi-
als commonly used in Southern Europe in the early 70s. The structural conguration is also
Fig. 1 The SPEAR structure (the left picture is taken from ELSA 2005)
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 781
C5
C1 C2
C9
C8
C6
C3
C7
C4
3.0 6.0
.7
9.7
4
.
0
6
.
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
5
.
0
5
.
5
3.0 5.0 1.7
m
x
y
CM
m
9.7
2
.
5
2
.
5
2
.
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
3
.
0
.
1
5
.
1
5
.
1
5
m
m
m
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 a Plan and b cross-section of the SPEAR structure
Table 1 The different variants of the structure
Variant Description
Test The original structure, which was tested at ELSA (Ispra, Italy)
Test 0.15 Structure partially designed according to EC8 (a
g
= 0.15 g, DCM (q = 3.45), ground type C
(S = 1.15)), with unchanged geometry, dimensions of the load-bearing elements and vertical
load
Test 0.25 As Test 0.15, but a
g
= 0.25 g instead of a
g
= 0.15 g
EC8 M Structure designed according to EC0, EC1 and EC8 (a
g
= 0.25 g, DCM (q = 3.45), ground
type C (S = 1.15)), with unchanged geometry, the dimensions of the load-bearing elements
were suitably increased
EC8 H As EC8 M, but DCH (q = 5.20) instead of DCM (q = 3.45)
typical of non-earthquake-resistant construction of that period. This structure was pseudo-
dynamically tested at full-scale and analyzed within the scope of the European project SPEAR
(ELSA2005). Some results of the tests and analyses are provided in (Negro et al. 2004; Jeong
and Elnashai 2005a,b; Fardis and Negro 2005; Fajfar et al. 2006; Kosmopoulos and Fardis
2007), inter alia.
2.1 Basic characteristics of the structure
The structure is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It is considered to be a residential building. The live
load, taken into account for the ve investigated variants, amounts to 2.0 kN/m
2
(Table 1).
2.1.1 Variants Test, Test 0.15 and Test 0.25
All three variants have the same geometry and vertical loading. In addition to the weight
of the structure, an additional permanent load of 0.5 kN/m
2
was taken into account. The
123
782 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
25
2
5
25
7
5
1
5
3
5
25
Column 25/25 cm
Column 25/75 cm
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/20 cm
212
412
412
Stirrups 8/25 cm
Stirrups 8/25 cm
1012
1
.
5
25
2
5
25
7
5
1
5
3
5
25
Column 25/25 cm
Column 25/75 cm
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/10 cm
214
414
820
Stirrups 6/10 cm
Stirrups 6/8 cm
1422
3
(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Typical cross-sections of the beams and columns of the variants a Test and b Test 0.25
dimensions of the load-bearing elements are the same for all three variants, but quantity of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement varies.
The columns have dimensions b/h = 25/25 cm, except for the strong column (C6), which
has dimensions b/h = 25/75 cm. The beams have dimensions b/h = 25/50 cm. The typical
structural elements of the basic structure (Test), as well as their longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, are shown in Fig. 3a. From this gure it is obvious that the reinforcement of
the columns is very weak. Smooth bars with an average tensile strength of 467MPa (8),
459MPa (12) and 377MPa (20) were used. The average compressive strength of the
concrete used in the structure was 25MPa. The listed characteristics of the material were
taken into account when calculating the characteristics of the cross-sections of the structural
elements (M
y
and
pl
um
) of the variant Test.
In the case of the changed structures Test 0.15 and Test 0.25, as well as in the case of EC8
Mand EC8 H, when designing according to EC8-1, design values for the C25/30 concrete and
for Grade 400 reinforcing steel were taken into account. On the other hand, when calculating
the characteristics of the cross-sections for non-linear assessment analysis, the characteristic
values of concrete and steel were considered.
In the case of the basic structure (Test) the most critical elements are the columns, which
are much weaker than the beams
_
M
Rc
0.15 0.20

M
Rb
_
. The total longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (
l
) for a typical column (25/25cm) amounts to 0.72%, which is less
than the requirement of EC8 (1.0%), and the requirement regarding the provision of at least
eight longitudinal reinforcing bars is also not met. The distance between the shear stirrups is
too large (25cm). The thickness of the concrete cover amounts to 1.5cm.
In the case of the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25 the quantity of reinforcement in the
columns was increased significantly. The reinforcement for the variant Test 0.25 is shown
in Fig. 3b. The variant Test 0.15 has similar longitudinal reinforcement in the beams but
about 40% less longitudinal reinforcement in the columns than the variant Test 0.25. The
shear reinforcement is similar for both variants. Due to the unchanged dimensions of the
load-bearing elements of the structure it was, however, not possible to full the condition
about global and local ductility, which requires that

M
Rc
1.3

M
Rb
, (1)
where

M
Rc
is the sum of the design values of the moments of resistance of the columns
framing the joint, and

M
Rb
is the sum of the design values of the moments of resistance
of the beams framing the joint. However, the ratio between the moments of resistance of the
columns and beams was considerably improved in comparison with the original structure,
and amounts, in the case of the variant Test 0.25, to:

M
Rc
0.65 0.90

M
Rb
. The
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 783
thickness of the concrete cover was increased to 3.0cm. The three oors consist of 15cm
thick monolithic RC slabs.
2.1.2 Variants EC8 M and EC8 H
In the case of the variants EC8 M and EC8 H, the requirements of the Eurocodes were taken
into account fully. Realistic values were used for the permanent loads. The permanent load,
taken into account in addition to the weight of the structure, amounted to 2.7 kN/m
2
, com-
pared to 0.5 kN/m
2
used in test structures. As a result, the total mass of these variants was 45%
larger than the total mass of test structures. The geometry of the whole structure remained
the same as in the case of the test structures, but the dimensions of individual load-bearing
elements were changed. The dimensions of the columns were increased to b/h = 35/35 cm,
and in the case of the strong column (C6) to b/h = 35/85 cm. The beams have dimensions
b/h = 35/45 cm (Fig. 4). The concrete cover amounts to 3.0cm. The slabs are the same as
in the basic variant.
In contrast to the previous variants, in which the longitudinal reinforcement of all the
columns of each storey was the same (with the exception of column C6), in the case of the
variants EC8 M and EC8 H seven different types of reinforcement were selected (Table2).
Column 35/35 cm
Stirrups
8/12 cm
822
35
Column 35/85 cm
Stirrups
8/12 cm
3
.
0
1622
1
5
35
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/9 cm
516
416
8
5
35
3
0
Column 35/35 cm
Stirrups
8/9 cm
35
Column 35/85 cm
Stirrups
8/8.5 cm
3
.
0
1
5
35
Typical beam
Stirrups
8/9 cm
8
5
35
3
0
316
316
416
420
420
1216
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Typical cross-sections of the beams and columns of the variants a EC8 M and b EC8 H
Table 2 Selected types of reinforcement for columns b/h = 35/35 cm for the variants EC8 M and EC8 H
Type Reinforcement A
s
[cm
2
]
l
[%] EC8 M EC8 H
1st & 2nd storey 3rd storey 1st & 2nd storey 3rd storey
A 814 12.32 1.01 C8, C9
B 816 16.08 1.31 C5, C8, C9 C1, C3, C5,
C7
C 416, 420 20.61 1.68 C7 C2, C5, C7, C8, C2, C4
C9
D 820 25.13 2.05 C7, C9 C1, C2, C3, C1,C4
C4
E 822 30.41 2.48 C2, C4, C5, C3
C8
F 422, 425 34.84 2.84 C3
G 825 39.27 3.21 C1
123
784 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 5 Elastic and design
acceleration spectrum according
to Eurocode 8, for ground type C
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
T [s]
S
d

[
g
]
Elastic sp. (ag = 0.15 g)
Elastic sp. (ag = 0.25 g)
Design sp. (ag = 0.15 g, DCM)
Design sp. (ag = 0.25 g, DCM)
Design sp. (ag = 0.25 g, DCH)
A particular type of reinforcement was selected for each column as the most suitable, which
was the closest to fullling the requirements of the standard and which would cause the
least possible overstrength. Thus the average ratio of total longitudinal reinforcement (
l
)
amounted, in the rst two storeys, to 2.51% (EC8 M) and 1.87% (EC8 H), and in the third
storey to 1.73 and 1.33%, respectively. In the case of the variant EC8 M the strong column
C6 (b/h = 35/85 cm) was reinforced, in the rst two storeys, with 1622 (
l
= 2.04%) and
with 1616 (
l
= 1.08%) in the third storey. In the case of the variant EC8 H, this column
was reinforced with 420 and 1216 (
l
= 1.23%) in the rst two storeys, and with 1216
and 414 (
l
= 1.02%) in the third storey.
2.2 Seismic loading
Design spectra according to EC8 for soil type Cwere used (Fig. 5). Abehaviour factor of 3.45
was taken into account for the DCM structures, and a factor of 5.2 was taken into account
for the DCH structure. It was conservatively assumed that the structures are irregular in plan.
Consequently, for all the different variants, the coefcient related to the overstrength,
u
/
1
,
amounted to 1.15 (EC 8-1 2004). As will be shown by the results of the non-linear static
analysis, which are presented in Chapter 4.2, the actual overstrength is considerably larger,
so that in the next iteration a larger value of the coefcient
u
/
1
could be taken into account,
which would result in a smaller seismic action.
2.3 Comparison of the different variants of the structure
The basic characteristics of the ve investigated variants, which have been described in detail
in Chaps. 2.1 and 2.2, are presented in Table3. The designations S1, S2 and S3 mean
the rst, second and third storey of the structure.
It is interesting to compare the longitudinal reinforcement of a typical column for the
different variants. Fig. 6 shows the quantity of reinforcement in individual storeys of the
SPEAR structure. Although, in the case of the model Test 0.25 the quantity of longitudinal
reinforcement was increased to the limit permitted by the standard EC8 (
l
= 4.0%), it
was not possible to satisfy the condition of global and local ductility without increasing the
size of the columns to b/h = 35/35 cm. The dimensions of the beams, too, were modied
(b/h = 35/45 cm). In the case of variants EC8 M and EC8 H the total quantity of concrete
in the load-bearing structure (columns, beams, slabs) increased by 9.33 m
3
(13.7%). The
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 785
Table 3 Overview of the characteristics of the different variants of the structure
Subject of the
analytical modelling
Assumptions
Test Test EC8
0.15 0.25 M H
Geometrical characteristics
Geometry The SPEAR structure
Columns b/h = 25/25 cm b/h = 35/35 cm
412 816 (S1-2) 820 (S1-2) Optimally designed
814 (S3) 816 (S3) longitudinal
reinforcement
according to EC8
for each column
(see Table2)
The strong column b/h = 25/75 cm b/h = 35/85 cm
1012 1416 (S1-2) 1422 (S1-2) 1622 (S1-2) 1216, 420
1414 (S3) 1416 (S3) 1616 (S3) 1214, 416
Beams b/h = 25/50 cm b/h = 35/45 cm
Regularity in elevation Yes
Regularity in plan No Yes
Material
Concrete f
cd
= 16.7 MPa (design; C25/30)
f
c
= 25 MPa f
c
= 25 MPa (non-linear analysis)
Steel f
yd
= 348 MPa (design; RS Grade 400)
f
y
= 459 MPa f
y
= 400 MPa (non-linear analysis)
Load and mass
Gravity loads Permanent action (G) + 0.30 variable action (Q)
Sum of axial forces in S1: 1939 S1: 2917
columns (kN) S2: 1292 S2: 1951
S3: 648 S3: 975
Calculation of mass G + 0.15 Q (S1 in S2)
G + 0.30 Q (S3)
Mass (t ) S1 and S2: 67.3; S3: 62.8; : 197.4 S1 and S2: 96.3; S3: 94.4;
: 287.0
amount of shear reinforcement in the columns of the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25 is the
same and amounts to 2.8 times the shear reinforcement in the columns of the Test structure.
In the case of EC8 M and EC8 H the amount of shear reinforcement in the columns is 4.2
and 5.6 times greater, respectively, than in the case of the Test structure. The ratios of the
sums of the moments of resistance of the columns and beams are shown for the most critical
joint in Fig. 7.
By changing the dimensions of the elements of the structure it was possible to design
it strictly in accordance with Eurocode 8. It should be mentioned that in the case of the
EC8 models the complete vertical loading according to the Eurocode standards was taken
into account, resulting in a 50% greater vertical load and a 45% greater mass than in the
case of the original structure (Table3). This difference needs to be taken into account when
123
786 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 6 The quantity of
longitudinal reinforcement in a
typical column
4.5
16.1
25.1
30.8
23.0
4.5
16.1
25.1
30.8
23.0
4.5
12.3
16.1
21.2
16.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Test Test 0.15 Test 0.25 EC8 M EC8 H

A
s

[
c
m
2
]
3rd storey
2nd storey
1st storey
Fig. 7 The ratio of the sums of
the moments of resistance of the
columns and beams
0.15
0.40
0.65
1.30 1.30
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1

M
R
c

/

M
R
b
Test
Test 0.15
Test 0.25
EC8 M
EC8 H
comparing the variants designed strictly according to EC8, and the variants of the original
structure (Test). Unlike the original structure, the changed structure satises the conditions
of Eurocode 8 with regard to regularity in plan.
A rough cost analysis was made. The results indicate that, due to a small increase in the
amount of concrete and a substantial increase in the amount of reinforcement, the cost of the
structural system without foundation (columns, beams and slabs) would increase by about 8,
12, 27 and 21%in the case of Test 0.15, Test 0.25, EC8 Hand EC8 Mstructures, respectively,
compared to the test structure. Note that this increase in cost applies only to the upper part of
the structural system and that the cost of the load-bearing structure represents only a small
part of the total costs of a building.
3 Modelling of the structure
3.1 The mathematical model
SAP2000 (2002) was used to analyse the structure. A space frame model with one element
per member was used. The RC slabs were assumed to be innitely stiff in their planes and
completely exible out of plane. The effective width of the beams was determined according
to Eurocode 2 (EC 2 2004). The accidental eccentricity, which is prescribed by Eurocode
8, was taken into account by means of additional torsional moments, acting in individual
storeys of the structure. These were obtained by multiplying the seismic forces in both hor-
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 787
Fig. 8 The moment-rotation
relationship of a plastic joint
izontal directions with the corresponding accidental mass eccentricity (0.05L
i
). Due to the
assumption of the innite stiffness of the slabs in their own plane the point of action of the
torsional moment could be anywhere in the plane of the slab. Second order theory was not
applied. With regard to the initial bending (EI) and shear (GA
s
) stiffness, in accordance with
the requirements of EC8, values equal to half the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked
cross-sections were taken into account.
Usingcentreline dimensions, the storeyheights were 2.75and3mfor the rst andthe upper
two stories, respectively. This assumption provided very good agreement of the results with
those obtained in the pseudo-dynamic tests in the validation procedure of the mathematical
model (Fajfar et al. 2006).
Beam and column exural behaviour was modelled by one-component lumped plasticity
elements, composed of an elastic beam and two inelastic rotational hinges (dened by a
moment-rotation relationship). The element formulation was based on the assumption of an
inexion point at the midpoint of the element. For beams, the plastic hinge was used for
major axis bending only. For columns, two independent plastic hinges for bending about the
two principal axes were used. The interaction between axial force and bending moment was
not considered. Elastic axial, shear and torsional response of the element was assumed. Con-
sidering the test results (for the Test structure) and the EC8 requirements (for other variants
of the SPEAR building) the possibility of a shear failure was not taken into account.
For plastic hinges, the moment-rotation relationship shown in Fig. 8 was used. It was
assumed that at the rotation
um
the moment capacity of the cross-section falls instanta-
neously to 0.2M
y
. After that it remains at this level until a rotation of 3
um
is reached (Fig. 8).
The value of 3
um
was arbitrarily chosen. It does not inuence the results. The designation
y means yielding and corresponds to damage limitation (DL), SD signies the limit state
corresponding to significant damage, NC signies near collapse, and TC signies total
collapse. Only two quantities (the moment at the elastic limit M
y
, and the plastic part
pl
um
of
the ultimate rotation
um
) have to be calculated for each element in addition to the quantities
needed for elastic analysis. The yield rotation
y
is determined by the program using the
equation
y
=
y
L
V
/3, where
y
is the yield curvature and L
V
is the shear span at the
member end, i.e. the moment/shear ratio at the end section. In the case of the columns the
moment-rotation relationship in the positive and negative direction is symmetrical, whereas
in the case of the beams it is asymmetrical due to geometry and different reinforcement at
the top and bottom.
M
y
was calculated for each element by analysing the cross-section of the element. The
plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation
um
was determined according to Equation (A.3)
in EC 8-3 (2005)
123
788 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799

pl
um
=
um

y
=
1

el
0.0145 (0.25

)
_
max(0.01;

)
max(0.01; )
_
0.3
f
0.2
c

_
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
(1.275
100
d
)
(2)
where the parameters have the following meanings:
el
amounts to 1.5 and 1.0 for the primary
and secondary seismic elements, respectively, = N/A
c
f
c
is the normalised axial force in
the element, = (A
st
f
y
)/(A
c
f
c
)(or

) is the mechanical reinforcement ratio of the

tension (or compression) longitudinal reinforcement, f
c
is the compressive strength of the
concrete, f
y
is the tensile strength of the longitudinal reinforcement, L
V
is the moment/shear
ratio at the end section (the zero moment point was assumed to be at the mid-span of the
columns and beams), h is the depth of cross-section, is a factor which takes into account the
connement of the concrete cross-section,
sx
= A
sx
/(b
w
s
h
) is the ratio of the transverse
steel parallel to the direction x of loading, s
h
is the stirrup spacing, f
yw
is the tensile strength
of shear reinforcement, and
d
is the diagonal reinforcement ratio (equal to zero in the case
of the investigated elements).
In our calculations the zero moment point was assumed to be at the mid-span of the col-
umns and beams. The parameter
el
was equal to 1.5. Note that this value represents a safety
factor. It means that only two/thirds of the estimated mean value of the plastic chord rotation
capacity is taken into account in the seismic assessment of primary structural elements. In
the case of the basic structure (Test), low values for the connement effectiveness factor,
= 0.056, and for the ratio of the transverse reinforcement,
sx
= 0.0016, were adopted.
The connement effectiveness factor amounted to 0.36 (Test 0.15, Test 0.25), 0.42 (EC8 M)
and 0.48 (EC8 H), and the ratio of the transverse reinforcement
sx
amounted to 0.0045 (Test
0.15, Test 0.25), 0.0048 (EC8M) and 0.0064 (EC8 H). In the case of the original structure
Test, due to the absence of seismic detailing, the plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation
was multiplied by a factor equal to 0.825.
The plastic parts of the ultimate rotations calculated according to Eq. 2 for the most
important columns of the ve investigated variants are presented in Table4. The results in
Table4 indicate a surprisingly small difference in the plastic chord rotation capacity between
the columns designed according to the old and new practices. The estimates, which were
made in parallel with the nonparametric CAE method (Peru et al. 2006; Peru and Fajfar
2007) by using the PEER database for columns (PEER 2007), suggest smaller values than
those obtained with EC8 for the old columns (Test) and larger values for the new columns.
A comparison of estimated mean values is shown in Table5. Alternatively, the Fardis data-
base (Panagiotakos and Fardis 2001) was also used for the estimation of the ultimate chord
rotation capacity (elastic and plastic part) with the CAE method. The results obtained for
Table 4 The plastic parts of the ultimate chord rotation capacity of columns (
pl
um
, %)
1st storey 2nd storey
C1 C2 C3 C5 C6
X
C6
Y
C1 C2 C3 C5 C6
X
C6
Y
Test 2.24 2.27 1.81 2.59 1.75 2.56 2.48 2.50 2.16 2.73 1.85 2.70
Test 0.15/0.25 2.70 2.77 2.20 3.14 2.15 3.15 2.99 3.04 2.62 3.31 2.26 3.31
EC8 M 2.79 2.81 2.48 3.09 2.27 2.91 3.04 3.06 2.81 3.25 2.39 3.06
EC8 H 2.95 2.97 2.61 3.25 2.39 2.98 3.21 3.22 2.96 3.43 2.52 3.13
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 789
Table 5 Comparison of the plastic parts of the ultimate chord rotation capacity of columns (
pl
um
, %) accord-
ing to EC8-3 and the CAE method
EC8-3 (
el
= 1.0) CAE
1st storey 2nd storey 1st storey 2nd storey
C1 C3 C1 C3 C1 C3 C1 C3
Test 3.4 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8
Test 0.15 4.1 3.3 3.0 2.6 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.2
Test 0.25 4.1 3.3 3.0 2.6 4.8 4.6 5.0 5.0
EC8 M 4.2 3.7 3.0 2.8 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.4
EC8 H 4.4 3.9 3.2 3.0 4.7 5.3 4.7 5.3
the old columns were similar to those obtained with EC8, whereas the capacities obtained
for the new columns were similar to those obtained with the PEER database. Quite different
results obtained by different approaches indicate that a large uncertainty is still involved in
the determination of deformation capacities. In the seismic assessment presented in this paper
the EC8 capacities were taken into account.
4 Analysis of the response of the structure
4.1 Elastic analysis
4.1.1 Periods and modal shapes
The results of the free vibration analysis are presented in Table6 and in Fig. 9. In the case
of all the investigated variants, the rst two modes are predominantly translational (the rst
mainly in the x direction and the second mainly in the y direction), whereas the third mode
is predominantly torsional.
A comparison of the periods and of the effective mass ratios, obtained by elastic modal
analysis, is presented in Table6. This table also contains the values which were obtained from
the measurements on the Test structure (Negro et al. 2004) in the initial pseudo-dynamic test
with a lowintensity (a
g
= 0.02 g). The results indicate smaller periods of the EC8 variants of
the building and less coupling of the torsional and translation vibrations in the case of these
variants. (Note that in the case of elastic analysis, the results for all three Test variants are
the same. The same applies to two EC8 variants.)
4.1.2 Storey drifts
In the case of frame structures, the storey drift limitation is one of the most limiting require-
ments of EC8. Its purpose is to ensure the serviceability of the building after smaller
earthquakes (damage limitation state). A comparison of the design storey drifts is shown
in Fig. 10 for the original SPEAR structure (Test) and for its variant (EC8). The average
storey drifts ratios (i.e. the drifts divided by the storey height) of the individual storeys are
presented, for the peak ground accelerations Sa
g
= 0.17 g and 0.29g, as well as the permis-
sible storey drifts for the three types of non-structural elements according to EC8. In order to
allow a comparison, the storey drifts obtained by elastic analysis for the design action were
123
790 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Table 6 The periods and the effective mass ratios
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Test T (s) 0.80 0.69 0.58 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.11
m
eff,X
(%) 69.0 15.6 2.7 8.0 2.0 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.0
m
eff,Y
(%) 4.8 47.8 30.3 0.5 4.2 0.0 7.5 1.0 3.8
EC8 T (s) 0.56 0.53 0.41 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.08
m
eff,X
(%) 78.7 5.4 1.3 10.3 0.7 0.2 3.1 0.3 0.0
m
eff,Y
(%) 3.6 72.3 6.4 0.3 10.0 2.4 0.1 2.1 2.8
PsD test T (s) 0.84 0.78 0.67 0.34 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.17
Fig. 9 The rst three modes of free vibration and the corresponding periods (Models EC8 M/H)
multiplied by the behaviour factor q and the permissible drifts were divided by = 0.5 (see
Eqs. 4.314.33 in EN 1998-1:2004). The results show that the storey drifts are reduced in the
case of the variant EC8, where the dimensions of the columns and the masses were increased.
In spite of this, in the case of a design ground acceleration of 0.25g the strictest criterion (for
buildings having non-structural elements of brittle materials attached to the structure) was
somewhat exceeded in the second storey.
4.1.3 The effect of torsion
Due to the asymmetry of the SPEAR structure, torsion has a considerable effect on the
displacements of the external columns, for all the different variants of the structure. It
has a particularly big effect on the displacements of the Test variants, which, according
to EC8, are irregular in plan. The EC8 buildings just full the condition of plan regularity.
In Fig. 11, the normalized roof displacements in the horizontal plane, i.e. the displacement
at any point divided by the displacement at the centre of mass (CM), are plotted. The results
were obtained with the SRSS combination of the results of two linear modal analyses in the
two horizontal directions. In the case of the Test structures the displacements of the ex-
ible edge are 31% greater in the x direction (columns C1, C2 and C5) and 30% in the y
direction (columns C4 and C7) than at the CM. For the EC8 variants the effect of torsion is
smaller.
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 791
Fig. 10 Comparison of the
storey drifts obtained by elastic
analysis with the permissible
storey drifts for the three different
types of non-structural elements
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Drift - dr/h [%]
Storey
Test (Sag = 0.17 g)
EC8 (Sag = 0.17 g)
Test (Sag = 0.29 g)
EC8 (Sag = 0.29 g)
Brittle non-
struc. elements
Ductile non-
struc. elements
Separated non-
struc. elements
1
2
3
Fig. 11 The effect of torsion on
the displacements at the top of
the structure. In the oor plan the
displacements are normalized to
the displacement at the centre of
mass CM. The exible and stiff
sides are indicated
C5 C1 C2
C9
C8
C6
C3
C7
C4
x
y
CM
0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4
Test
EC8
X X,CM
STIFF
FLEXIBLE
Y
Y
,
C
M
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
4.2 Non-linear static analysis
The seismic capacity of the structure, i.e. the greatest seismic intensity which the structure
can withstand, was calculated with the N2 method (Fajfar 1999, 2000). The effect of torsion
was taken into account according to the extended procedure described in (Fajfar et al. 2005).
Non-linear static (pushover) analysis was performed using the program SAP2000 inde-
pendently in both of the horizontal directions. In both directions a load in the positive and
negative direction was taken into account. The distribution of the horizontal forces along the
height of the building was determined using the fundamental mode which is critical for the
particular direction. Thus the distribution in the x direction was determined from the rst
mode of vibration, and the distribution in the y direction was determined from the second
mode of vibration.
123
792 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 12 The normalized
force-normalized displacement
diagrams for the x direction
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
dn / H [%]
F
b

/

W

[
%
]
Test
Test 0.15
Test 0.25
EC8 M
EC8 H
Design force
1st yield of beam
1st yield of column
NC
= 3.23
= 3.20
= 5.29
= 2.46
= 6.50
The relationships between the base shear force, normalized to the total weight of the
structure, and the displacement at the top of the building, normalized to the height of the
building, are presented in Fig. 12 for the x direction, which is the critical direction. The design
horizontal force and the initiation of plastification of each individual model are marked. The
NC (near collapse) state is also marked. In EC8 this state is dened at the level of the ele-
ments, but not at the level of the structure. In the analyses described in this paper it was taken
into account that the NC state of the structure is reached when the NC limit state is reached
in the rst column, i.e. when the ultimate chord rotation
um
is exceeded. Determination of
the ultimate chord rotations was discussed in Chap. 3.1. When determining the displace-
ments of the structure at each step of the pushover analysis, the effect of torsion was taken
into account according to the procedure described in (Fajfar et al. 2005). According to this
procedure the torsional effects are determined by elastic modal analysis. The displacements
from the nonlinear static (pushover) analysis are multiplied with correction factors which
are determined as the ratio between the normalized roof displacement determined by elastic
modal analysis (Fig. 9) and the normalized roof displacement obtained by pushover analysis.
The correction factor depends on the location of the element in the plan. The correction is
performed only if the displacements are amplied due to the torsional effect. A benecial
torsional effect, i.e. reduction of the displacement due to torsion, is not taken into account.
In the case of the investigated structures, torsional amplication occurs on the exible sides
of the structures (Columns C1, C2, C4, C7, Fig. 11). In Fig. 12, the global ductility of the
structure is also indicated for all variants. It is dened as the ratio between the displacement
at the NC limit state and the displacement at the elastic limit of an idealized bilinear system
with an initial stiffness which is determined in such a way that the areas under the actual and
the idealized force-displacement curves are equal (see the idealization for EC8 M in Fig. 12).
4.3 Assessment of behaviour
As the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement was increased in the case of the Test 0.15 and
Test 0.25 variants compared to the basic Test structure, their load-carrying capacities and top
displacements at the limit state NC increased, whereas their global ductilities and the plastic
mechanisms were still very similar to those of the basic variant of the structure (Fig. 12).
A large difference can be observed in Fig. 12 between the stiffness of the test structure and
that of the two EC8 variants. The latter two variants have also a much greater load-carrying
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 793
Fig. 13 Plastic hinges of structures at the NC limit state (loading in the x direction), (plastication of the
cross-section, SD, NC)
capacity (an increase in weight of 50% must be taken into account) and a much greater top
displacement at the NC level. The variant EC8 H has a 23% greater ductility than the variant
EC8 M. Both variants have a greater ductility than that which was assumed in the design
(taking into account the behaviour factor q). Due to a more favourable plastic mechanism
(Fig. 13) both the ultimate displacements and the ductilities of the EC8 variants are much
greater than those of the variants Test 0.15 and Test 0.25, in spite of similar chord rotation
capacities of individual columns and beams. In the case of all the variants a considerable
overstrength, typical for statically indeterminate structures, can be observed. Some over-
strength is also due to the somewhat larger quantity of reinforcement than would be necessary
according to calculations (5 to 15%). The overstrength is greater than that which was taken
into account in the design. For this reason it would be possible, in the modied design, to
take into account a 30% smaller seismic effect, since the maximum permissible value for the
overstrength factor
u
/
1
= 1.5 could be used instead of a value of 1.15.
123
794 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Table 7 The characteristics of the idealized systems for the x direction
Parameter Test Test 0.15 Test 0.25 EC8 M EC8 H
F
y
(kN) 211 444 583 905 699
D
y
(cm) 3.47 4.94 7.17 4.22 3.45
D
NC
(cm) 11.1 15.8 17.6 22.3 22.4
m

(t) 135 141 141 192 192

T

(s) 0.94 0.79 0. 83 0.59 0.61

1.26 1.24 1.24 1.28 1.28
F
y
/W 0.109 0.229 0.301 0.310 0.239
S
ay
(g) 0.126 0.261 0.343 0.375 0.290
The plastic hinges which occur in different variants of the SPEAR structure for the load-
ing in the direction x are shown in Fig. 13 for the NC limit state. Different limit states at
the element level are indicated by different colours (see also Fig. 8). The chord rotation at
the significant damage (SD) limit state is dened, according to EC8, as 3/4 of the chord
rotation at the NC limit state. The displacements at which the NC limit state is reached are
also indicated. In the case of the variant Test almost all of the columns of the rst and second
storey yield at both joints, whereas most of the beams remain in the elastic region. A plastic
mechanism was formed in the lower two storeys. A favourable global plastic mechanism,
where most of the beams yield, as well as the columns at their xed base, was ensured in
the case of the two variants EC8. In the case of both of these variants the global plastic
mechanism is the same, so that in Fig. 13 only the variant EC8 M is shown. Due to the effect
of torsion the NC limit state was rst reached in column C1 (the edge column), at the top
of the second storey in the case of the variant Test and at the base in the case of the other
variants.
For the assessment of the seismic structural behaviour the N2 method was used. The basic
variant of this method has been implemented in EC8. The basic steps of the method consist
of a pushover analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system, transformation of the
MDOF system to an equivalent idealized single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, deter-
mination of the target displacement, and the determination of all relevant demand quantities.
These quantities can be then compared with the corresponding capacities. In this paper only
selected parts of the assessment procedure are shown.
The values dening the idealized relationships of the pushover curves in the x direction
are summarized in Table7, together with some other characteristics of the idealized systems
used in the N2 method (EC8-Part 1, Annex B): the yield point (F
y
and D
y
), the NC point
(D
NC
, F
NC
), the effective mass m

, the transformation factor , the period of the equivalent

SDOF system T

, the maximum base shear versus weight ratio F

y
/W, and the acceleration
capacity of the equivalent SDOF system S
ay
.
First, the global structural response in the case of a ground motion corresponding to
the design ground acceleration (on rock) a
g
= 0.25 g and to the EC8 elastic spectrum for
ground type C (S = 1.15) are evaluated. The effective peak ground acceleration amounts
to Sa
g
= 0.25 1.15 = 0.29 g. The elastic and inelastic demand spectra and the capac-
ity diagrams (for equivalent SDOF systems) for the Test, Test 0.25 and EC8 M variants are
plotted in Fig. 14. The demand (performance) point is dened as the intersection of the capac-
ity diagram and the inelastic demand spectrum which corresponds to the relevant ductility.
For two variants (Test and Test 0.25) the period T

is larger than the characteristic period

T
C
= 0.6 s, so the equal displacement rule applies and the inelastic displacement demand
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 795
Fig. 14 Demand spectra and
capacity diagrams for idealized
SDOF systems in
acceleration-displacement (AD)
format. The demand corresponds
to the EC8 spectrum, Soil Type
C, a
g
= 0.25 g, S = 1.15.
Ductility demands are indicated
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Displacement [cm]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
Test
Test 0.25
EC8 M
Elastic spectrum
Inelastic spectrum
Demand
NC capacity
T
*
= 0.59 s
S a
g
= 0.29 g
T
*
= 0.83 s
T
*
= 0.94 s
}
Capacity
diagram

= 3.65
= 1.52
= 1.92
is equal to the elastic displacement demand. In the case of the EC8 M structure, the period
T

is slightly smaller than T

C
, and the inelastic displacement demand is slightly larger than
the elastic displacement. Seismic assessment can be performed by comparing demand and
capacity. For the variants Test 0.25 and EC8 M, the deformation capacity at the NC limit
state is large enough to accommodate the demand. On the other hand, for the variant Test,
the demand exceeds capacity. For the details of the N2 method see (Fajfar 2000). Note that
all calculations can be performed by using simple formulae which are also provided in EC8.
Agraphical representation like that in Fig. 14 is used for visualization, and helps to understand
the inuence of the main structural parameters.
Figure15 is used for the illustration of the determination of the seismic capacity (in terms
of the greatest ground motion intensity that the structure can still withstand) of different vari-
ants of the SPEAR building. The problem is reversed. The aim is to determine the demand
spectrum (with a predetermined shape) at which the seismic demand is equal to the capacity.
The elastic demand spectra (with a shape according to EC8, ground type C) for the NC limit
state of the variants Test and EC8 H are shown in Fig. 15. It can be seen that the seismic
capacity in terms of the peak ground acceleration amounts to 0.25g (which corresponds
to a design ground acceleration a
g
= 0.22 g on rock) and 0.77g (which corresponds to
a
g
= 0.67 g on rock) for the original structure Test and for the variant EC8 H, respectively.
The seismic capacities of all variants are summarized in Fig. 16. The results show that the
seismic capacity of a building designed according to EC8 is more than three times greater
than the capacity of a typical existing building designed for gravity load only. The results also
indicate that a part of this increase is due to increased seismic loads and up-to-date detailing.
The seismic capacity of variants Test 0.15 and 0.25 is about 80% greater than the capacity
of the Test structure. A substantial further increase of about 70% can be attributed to the
compliance with the basic capacity design principle (strong column/weak beam concept),
which required an increase in the dimensions of columns.
A comparison of the storey drifts for all three storeys of all of the different variants of
the structure is shown in Fig. 17. In all cases the presented drifts are at the same loading,
i.e. at a peak ground acceleration of Sa
g
of 0.17, 0.29 and 0.46g. Note that in the case of
the Test structure, the NC limit state is reached at Sa
g
= 0.25 g, so the results for higher
ground motion intensities are hypothetical. In the case of the Test 0.15 and Test 0.25 vari-
ants, the highest ground motion intensity (Sa
g
= 0.46 g) approximately corresponds to the
NC limit state, whereas the two EC8 variants are able to withstand much larger ground
123
796 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
Fig. 15 Demand spectra and
capacity diagrams for idealized
SDOF systems in AD format.
The demand is presented for the
NC limit state of the variants Test
and EC8 H
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement [cm]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
g
]
Test
EC8 H
NC capacity
T
*
= 0.61 s
S a
g
= 0.77 g (NC)
T
*
= 0.94 s
Sa
g
= 0.25 g (NC)
Fig. 16 The seismic capacities
in terms of peak ground
acceleration of the different
variants of the structure
0.25
0.44
0.46
0.79
0.77
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
S

a
g

[
g
]
Test
Test 0.15
Test 0.25
EC8 M
EC8 H
Fig. 17 Comparison of storey
drifts for three ground
accelerations
motions. In the case of the original Test structure the second storey is critical, as was also
indicated by the pseudo-dynamic tests. The storey drifts of the second storey are much
smaller in the case of the variants with increased reinforcement (Test 0.15 and Test 0.25).
In the case of the variants EC8 M and EC8 H, due to the greater stiffness of the structure
and due to a favourable global plastic mechanism, the storey drifts in the rst two sto-
reys are smaller than in the case of all the test variants. The comparison of storey drifts
calculated by means of the non-linear analysis shown in Fig. 17, with those presented in
Fig. 10, which were determined by linear analysis, shows considerable similarity for the EC8
variants, which experience only a small plastification at the low ground motion intensity
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 797
Fig. 18 Comparison of the roof
displacement at the NC limit state
and for Sa
g
= 0.17 g
levels. In the case of the Test structure, the inelastic analysis indicates larger deformations
in the bottom two stories, especially in the second one, due to the unfavourable plastic
mechanism.
The displacement at the top of the structure in the case of a peak ground acceleration
of Sa
g
= 0.17 g and the displacement at the NC limit state, i.e. the displacement at which
the rst column reaches its ultimate rotation (
um
), are shown in Fig. 18. A comparison of
these two displacements illustrates the reserve each individual structure has in the case of a
moderate earthquake.
5 Conclusions
The paper provides a comparison of the seismic behaviour of ve variants of the SPEAR
building. The rst variant simulated older buildings which were not designed for seismic
loads. The second and third variants were designed using the seismic loading prescribed
in Eurocode 8, though still taking into account the dimensions of the basic variant (the
difference is only in the reinforcing), so that they do not correspond to the condition of
global ductility according to Eurocode 8. The last two variants have the same geometry as
the rst three, with changed dimensions of the load-bearing elements. Mainly by increas-
ing the size of the columns it was possible to fully provide compliance with the require-
ments of Eurocode 8. Apart from a standard elastic analysis, a simplied non-linear analysis
was performed with the N2 method. The stiffness, strength, ductility, roof displacement
and storey drifts of all variants were compared. Comparisons of the plastic mechanisms
and deformations of the structure were also made. In all cases the seismic capacity was
calculated, which is dened as the greatest ground motion intensity that the structure can
withstand.
All of the comparisons lead to the expected conclusion that the structures designed accord-
ing to the new standard EC8 are much safer than buildings belonging to the old design
practice. Due to larger seismic forces they have a higher lateral load-carrying capacity, and
due to better detailing and the ensuring of a suitable plastic mechanism they demonstrate
much greater local and global ductility. Due to their larger stiffness less damage occurs in
the case of less powerful, more frequent earthquakes. The results of the analyses show that
the two variants which were fully designed according to EC8 are able to withstand very
severe earthquake ground motions. The analyses according to EC8 indicate that the NC limit
state is reached at ground accelerations of about 0.750.8 g. These values were obtained
with conservative estimates of deformation capacity according to EC8, which are 33% lower
than the mean values. Moreover, the definition of the global NC level used in the analy-
123
798 Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799
ses is also conservative. Nevertheless, taking into account the large scatter of data and of
the results, which is common in earthquake engineering, it can be expected that a certain
proportion of structures designed according to EC8 will have a smaller seismic capacity.
Note also that, if a greater overstrength factor was considered in the determination of the
seismic loads according to EC8 and the behaviour factor was not reduced due to the irreg-
ularity in plan, then (in the next iteration) it would be possible to design the EC8 variants
for a 30% smaller seismic load. The capacity of the building representing the old design
practice is less than one third of the capacity of the EC8 building. By increasing the seis-
mic action to the EC8 level and by using up-to-date detailing, but not complying with the
basic principle of capacity design, i.e. the strong column / weak beam concept, the seismic
capacity increases but remains well below that reached by structures which fully comply
with EC8.
Of course, due to the requirements of EC8 the costs of building construction, on average,
increase. The new standard also requires more work for designers, at least in the initial stage,
when not all computer tools are available. This is the price for achieving a high seismic
resistance of building structures.
Acknowledgments The work presented in this paper was performed within the framework of the imple-
mentation of the Eurocode 8 standard in Slovenia. It was partly supported by the Slovenian Research Agency,
and by the Slovenian Agency for the Environment. The rst author is afliated with Trimo d.d., Trebnje and
is a Ph.D. student at the University of Ljubljana.
References
EC0 (2002) Basis of structural design, European standard EN1990. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels
EC 1 (2002) Actions on structures, part 1-1: general actionsdensities, self-weight, imposed loads for build-
ings, European standard EN 1991-1-1. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
EC 2 (2004) Design of concrete structure, part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings, European standard
EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
EC 8-1 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings, European standard EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
EC 8-3 (2005) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: strengthening and repair of buildings,
European standard EN 1998-3. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
ELSA (2005) SPEAR seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. European
Laboratory for Structural Assessment, Ispra. http://elsa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/term_activity.php?id=2
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
28(9):979993. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979::AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for the performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectr
16:573592. doi:10.1193/1.1586128
Fajfar P, Marui c D, Peru I (2005) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings.
J Earthq Eng 9(6):831854. doi:10.1142/S1363246905002249
Fajfar P, Dolek M, Marui c D, Stratan A (2006) Pre- and post-test mathematical modelling of a plan-asym-
metric reinforced concrete frame building. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 35(11):13591379. doi:10.1002/
eqe.583
Fardis M, Negro P (eds) (2005) Seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Proceedings of the international workshop, Ispra, 45 April 2005. EC JRC, European Laboratory for
Structural Assessment, Ispra
Jeong S-H, Elnashai A (2005a) Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregular RC frame
for fullscale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, part I: analytical model verication. J Earthq Eng 9(1):95128.
doi:10.1142/S1363246905001906
Jeong S-H, Elnashai A (2005b) Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregular RC frame
for fullscale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, part II: condition assessment and test development. J Earthq
Eng 9(2):265284. doi:10.1142/S1363246905001918
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2009) 7:779799 799
Kosmopoulos AJ, Fardis MN (2007) Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multi-storey
RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(9):12091234. doi:10.1002/eqe.678
Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E (2007) Comparison between non-linear dynamic analysis performed
according to EC8 and elastic and non-linear static analyses. Eng Struct 29:28932900. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2007.01.027
Negro P, Mola E, Molina J, Magonette GE(2004) Full scale PsDtesting of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey
non-seismic RC frame. Proc 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada
August 16, Paper n
o
968
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate.
ACI Struct J 98(2): 135148
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic performance of RC frames designed to Eurocode 8 or to the
Greek codes 2000. Bull Earthq Eng 2:221259. doi:10.1007/s10518-004-2288-2
PEER (2007) University of Washington. The UW-PEER reinforced concrete column test database. http://
www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/. Accessed 20 July 2008
Peru I, Poljanek K, Fajfar P (2006) Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined
by the CAE method. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 35(11):14531470. doi:10.1002/eqe.584
Peru I, Fajfar P (2007) Prediction of the force-drift envelope for RC columns in exure by the CAE method.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(15):23452363. doi:10.1002/eqe.735
SAP2000 (2002) Analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley
123