1

Beinci Ulusal Deprem Mhendislii Konferans, 26-30 Mays 2003, stanbul

Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 26-30 May 2003, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper No: AE-004
SEISMIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF R/C FRAMES ACCORDING TO EC8
Elena VASEVA
1
1
Assoc.Prof.Dr., Central Laboratory for Seismic Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, Head of Dept. Earthquake
Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to present the main principles concerning the estimation of the
seismic vulnerability of R/C frames according to EC8. In the paper are examined the methods
for the assessment of the q factor. The procedure for the estimation of the behaviour factor for
R/C frame is elaborated. Taking into account the great influence of this coefficient on the values
of the seismic action effects the conclusions about the reexamination and development of this
factor are made.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete, Earthquake damages, Behaviour factor
INTRODUCTION
To avoid explicit nonlinear structural analysis in design, the basic principle of EC8 is taken into account by performing
a linear analysis based on a reduced response spectrum, called for shortly design spectrum. This reduction is
accomplished introducing the behaviour factor q. The corresponding coefficient of the behaviour factor q in Bulgarian
seismic code, in he UBC and other code is the response modification factor R. The modification factors were originally
in ATC3 to make explicit the reduction of the elastic seismic forces to design level forces. Subsequently they were
adopted by UBC and expanded in NEHRP. They are semi-empirical, based on experience with building performance in
past earthquakes, on results from analytical and experimental studies and on calibrations with force levels in previous
code editions. They are differentiated among buildings with different materials and structural systems, reflecting
primarily the capacity of the structure to sustain inelastic deformations. Secondly, they reflect structural overstrength
and energy dissipation capacity. According to EC8 the resistance and energy dissipation capacity to be assigned to the
structure are related to the extent to which its nonlinear response is to be exploited. This balance between resistance and
energy dissipation capacity is characterized by the values of the behaviour factor q and associated ductility
classification, given in relevant part of EC8 (1994). The different values of the behaviour factors for r/c structures
correspond to the different available ductility. On the basis of the available ductility two ductility classes are
distinguished DCM (medium ductility) and DCH (high ductility). The behaviour factor is connected with ductility but it
is not equal to the ductility coefficient.
The are a lot of methods for the assessment of the q- factor, which can be grouped into three categories:
1 Methods based on the ductility factor theory
2 Methods based on an extrapolation of the inelastic dynamic response analyses of single-degree of freedom systems
3 Methods based on an energy approach
One of the well-known definitions of the behaviour factor (force reduction factor) is shown in Fig.1. In this figure the
seismic response envelope curve of real structure, idealized by the linear elastic-perfectly-plastic envelope, is compared
with the response of a perfectly elastic structure having the same initial elastic stiffness characteristics. The energy
dissipation capacity of the real structure is expressed by the global ductility factor = d
u
/ d
el.
As a results of the energy
dissipation capacity there is usually no need the structure to be designed for strength - for the expected elastic seismic
load E
e
. The structure should be designed for the ultimate design load E
u
.

The ratio between the two is called behaviour
factor q = Ee/Eu. In the case when the structure has been designed for load E
r
, for ultimate load Eu reduced by a
global safety factor d, the reserve strength, called overstrength in EC8 results in an increased behaviour factor q to
2
q = d . q.

For verification or revising of the overstrength very convenient method is the nonlinear static (pushover)
analysis which has been applied in the paper.
In this paper an attempt has been made to verify the values of the q factors proposed by Eurocode 8 for r/c frames.
The evaluation of accurate values of behaviour factors for different structural systems requires extensive parametric and
correlation studies of elastic and nonlinear behaviour of structures subjected to different types of earthquakes.
Fig. 1 Definition of the behaviour factor
PROCEDURE FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE BEHAVIOUR FACTOR q
The q factor represents a global characteristic of structural behaviour and a simple tool for designers, which allows
performing an equivalent elastic analysis instead an inelastic one. From the literature and the above mentioned
definitions is evident that many authors in the last years have tested different approaches to propose simplified methods
for estimation of the q factor. From the comparison of the results using these simplified methods (Mazzolani and Piluso
1996) reported a considerable scatter of the results.
In the previous works Vaseva (2001) used the following definitions for the behaviour factor:
1. Behaviour factor q is defined as the ratio of the work of the seismic load of elastic structures ( using the elastic
response spectrum, corresponding to the max design acceleration) and the work of seismic load of the inelastic
structure, corresponding to the ultimate limit state q
eng
2. Behaviour factor is defined through the evaluation of the one hand of the elastic strain energy stored in the state of
the first yielding, on the other hand of the total energy stored and dissipated by nonlinear deformations up to ultimate
limit sate q
eng1
.
3. Behaviour factor q is defined through the displacement ductility demand of the frame and corresponding overstrength
coefficient q
dis
.
4. Behaviour factor is the factor defined on the basis of the hysteretic energy corresponding to the ultimate limit state
and this one at the first yielding of the frame q
hys
The results received using the above mentioned methods for r/c frame designed to EC2 and EC8 (Report, 1996) are
given in Table 1. In this table with q* are assigned the value of the behavior factor at the ultimate limit state with 2%
interstory drift; with q** the value of the behavior factor at the ultimate limit state with 3% interstory drift.
The most closed results of the behavior factor to these used in the preliminary design of the frame are these received
through the q
eng
taking into account the global damage index of the frame defined according Park,Ang (1985). Using
the third definitions are received the values qs which give information about the oversrtength ratio. These values are
higher in comparison with values given in EC8.
Using the above mentioned definitions the considerable scatter of the results of the behaviour factor for r/c frames has
been received . It is evident that more significant general method needs to be proposed
3
Table 1 The values of the behaviour factor for R/C frame designed according to EC8
Behaviour Factor
Excitation q
eng1
q*
hys
q**hys
Q*
dis
Q**
dis.
q*
eng
q**eng
Q qs Q qs
Patras 2.47 1.6 3.8 1.5
art. Acc 5.68 3.36 3.93 3.95 5.70 6.9 6.92
EL Centro 3.82 1.7 5.16 1.9
3.56 4.82 6.37 6.49 9.8 4.55 3.8
Mexico 2.8 1.2 4.3 1.3
1.92 4.63 7.91 3.36 5.59 0.68 0.49
Vranchea 3.08 1.4 4.37 1.51
2.89 5.8 8.25 4.30 6.59 1.75 1.56
This method for re-evaluation of the behaviour factor definitions and recommended values is in the light of recent
studies of Broderick and Elnashai (1994,1996). According this approach and using the EC8 definition of the behaviour
factor, q is represented with the following relationship
q
code
= (Sa)
el

d
/(Sa)
in

d
(1)
(Sa)
d
is the ordinate of the response spectrum, corresponding to the elastic basic period of the frame. The superscripts
el and in refer to elastic and inelastic values - Fig.2.
Following the procedure suggested by Salvitti and Elnashai, (1996) for the behaviour factor two values are proposed
q = a
g(collapse) /
a
g(yield)
(2)
q
d
= [a
g(collapse
) / a
g(design
)].q
code
(3)
The first definition gives the real analytical behaviour factor and the second one gives the information of the
overstrength and for the ability of the structure to resist greater loads on the basis of the additional capacity and
ductility.
Fig. 2 Design, collapsed and yielding response spectrum
Very important steps in this approach are the definitions of yielding and collapsed limit state. The following definitions
for the yield limit state are accepted (Vasseva 2001]:
1. Yielding limit state first yield of the reinforcement bars in R/C section.
2. Global yielding definition an equivalent elastoplastic system with reduced strength with secant stiffness at load of
75% of the maximum load.
4
For the ultimate limit state are accepted two definitions
A. Damage indices according Ang-ParkWen definition -Damage Index greater than 0.6 is accepted as non-reparable
damages - Table 2. With this criteria are taken into account the damages at global and at the element level too.
B. Maximum level of deformation is defined by 3% interstory drift limit this definition is at global level.
Table 2. The correlation between received damage indices and damage states
Damage
Index
0. 0.0-
0.01
0.01-
0.1
0.1-0.3 0.3-0.6 0.6-
1.0
1.0
Damage
State
No Minor Light Moderate Heavy Major Destroyed
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF R/C FRAME DESIGNED TO EC8
A model of a two-story reinforced concrete frame, typical to construction practice of reinforced concrete structures in
many countries like Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria is investigated - Vasseva (2001). A typical R/C one bay two-story frame has
been designed and detailed to the final draft of EC8 for the high ductility class. The preliminary design has been
carried out at the University of Patras according to the EC2 and the current version of EC8 (1994) for ductility class H,
assuming the load 11kN per story and high seismicity (peak ground acceleration 0.5g, soil type B, importance factor 1).
The structure satisfied the regularity requirements both for vertical and horizontal configuration, so it was designed as a
frame with high regularity in ductility class H with the behaviour factor q=5. All of the frames elements were detailed
in accordance to the EC8 rules. The materials used for the specimens were normal-weight concrete C25/30 as specified
EC2 and B500 Tempcore rebars. The mechanical characteristics of the materials are evaluated on the basis of the tests
performed on the material samples at ISMES Laboratory (Report, 1996). Accepted concrete strength in numerical
analysis is 33 MPa. Tensile tests have been performed on the rebars to be used and the complete resulting stress-strain
diagram to failure has been received. The steel has an average yielding strength of 581 MPa for 12 and ultimate
strength of 670 MPa with elongation of 20%. The steel exhibits good ductility in the material testing.
The expected earthquake ground motions are represented by the selected accelerogrames with different intensity scale
factor - 0.3g; 0.4g; 0.5g; 0.7g, 0.8g, 0.85g.
Acc1: The artificial accelerogram from Patras University with design spectrum corresponded to EC8 spectrum -
Duration 10 sec, amax=0,3g=294 cm/sec2
Acc2: El Centro Site Imperial Valley Irrigation District, 18.5.1940; Max In. M=6.6; amax=341.7 cm/sec2;
Duration 53,76 sec
Acc3: Vranchea, 4.3.1977; M=7.2, Depth =60-100km; Duration-40.09sec, amax=194,92 sm/sec2
Acc4: Mexico City -St.1. 19.9.1995, amax=97cm/sec2; Duration 190 sec,
The dynamic analysis is performed using the IDARC2D program (Valles at al. 1996). With this program which adopted
a member by member macro - modeling the nonlinear analyses considering an integration time step of 0.001 sec. have
been carried out. Beams and columns are represented as the inelastic component elements with distributed plasticity and
the cyclic behavior of the member cross-sections is simulated by a degrading moment-curvature relationship with a
nonsymmetrical triliniar envelope curve. The hysteretic model depends on four parameters which control the stiffness
degradation at unloading and reloading, the strength deterioration and the slip and pinching effects. The modified three
parameter hysteretic model is used with a stiffness degradation coefficient HC=1.0 for columns and 2.0 for beams,
strength degradation coefficient HBE=0.05 (energy-based strength decay parameter) and HBD=0.0 (ductility-based
strength decay parameter) (very little deterioration in strength) and a pinching coefficient HS=1.0 (target slip or crack
closing parameter (indicating no pinching). The hysteretic parameters are initially assigned based on well-detailed
ductile sections, according to the requirements of EC8. The moment-curvature envelopes for sections of beams and
columns are received. During the nonlinear dynamic analysis the sequences of cracking and yielding are analyzed and
deformations, stresses, relationship moment-curvature and damage indexes were received by the fibre method. From the
nonlinear analysis the maximum values of the shear forces, displacements and story drifts are received too for the
different accelerograms with different scaling factors. A significant dispersion of the computed earthquake parameters
is obtained for the equal PGA of the different earthquakes because of the effect of the frequency content variation.
The calculated global damage indexes for design earthquake correspond to the physical damage and to the observed
damages during the shaking table test (Report, 1996). Part of the damages is due to permanent deformations while part
is due to strength deterioration from hysteretic behaviour. To these damages correspond the maximum hysteretic
energy. Hysteretic energy is also a known measure of structural damage.
From the numerical analysis the following results are received:
5
- in regards the global response the maximum values of the top displacement, interstorey drifts and base shear increase
with the intensity.
-the variation of the shear forces is negligible during the different earthquakes
-the behaviour of the frame under consideration is very close for two types of earthquakes - art. acc. Patras and El
Centro on one hand and Mexico City and Vranchea earthquake on the other hand, because of the different frequency
content (Fig.1)
-the intensity scale coefficient 0.65 is the coefficient when the increase of all the parameters started for Mexico and
Vranchea earthquake. This increase is very fast for the interstory drift. The value of this factor for two other earthquakes
is 0.85.
-the comparison of the vulnerability functions for hysteretic energy, story drift and damage indices indicate that a
measure of damages based on hysteretic energy alone may have not been reliable. The closest criteria with building
damage observed during earthquakes are the combined damage index of the dissipated energy and a structural overall
drift.
The variation of this combined damage indices (local and global) with the increase of the intensity is shown in Fig.3.
For increased intensity they have higher values.
-the results from numerical analysis show that the frames structure during the nonlinear analysis with the design
earthquake - Patras - amax = 0.5g performed very well. The structural damages were mostly concentrated in the
beams. The most dangerous for this frame is the Mexico City earthquake.
-significant dispersion of the computed earthquake parameters is obtained for the equal PGA of the different earthquake
because of the effect of the frequency content variation
Fig.3 Damage indices for different earthquakes EC8
The correct evaluation of the q factor, defined as the ratio between the acceleration leading to collapse and one
corresponding to the occurrence of first yielding requires several dynamic analyses for different ground motions In the
applied methodology the main problem is the definition of the collapse conditions or of an admissible level of
structural damage.
In addition to the dynamic analysis, the frame has been calculated using the push-over analyses. These push-over
analyses are a nonlinear static analysis under constant gravity loads and a monotonic increasing lateral load with
inverted triangular distribution along the height. With these analyses are received the shear-displacement diagrams used
for a global overstrength estimation. The determined by pushover analyses curves for values of the control
displacement is the capacity curve. With these types of analyses are investigated the applicability of possible yield and
collapse criteria.
Through a lot of nonlinear dynamic analysis of R/C frame under consideration are identified the peak ground
accelerations, corresponding to the yield and ultimate limit state using the above mentioned definitions. The
combinations of different limit states similar to these proposed by Elnashai (1996) are given in Table 3. The behavior
factor q in column 3 is the inherent behavior factor, and the behavior factor q
d
in column 6 gives information of the
behavior factor used in design. These two values are received for one and same ultimate limit state and for different
yield states. The minimum value of mean q
d
to design q factor is 2.888. The received results show that the behaviour
factors in EC8 may be safely increased, providing the satisfactory performance of the structures at excitation levels
above twice the design excitation.
1- art. acc.Patras; 2-acc. El Centro;
3-acc. Mexico City; 4-acc. Vranchea
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1 2 3 4
Da
ma
ge
Ind
ex
Intensi ty scale factor=0.4
Intensi ty scale factor=0.5
Intensi ty scale factor =0.7
Intensi ty scale factor=0.85
6
Table 3. The values of the behavior factor for R/C frame - EC8
Excitation. q(1,A) q(2,A) q(1,B) q(2,B) q
D
(A) q
D
(B)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Acc. 1 13,93 6.12 19.73 8.65 16.71 22.02
Acc. 2 14,3 4.12 16.97 6.12 14.52 18.19
Acc. 3 10,87 3.73 14.13 4.45 13.02 14.01
Acc. 4 12.44 3.92 17.88 4.89 13.51 14.84
Mean 12.87 4.576 17.16 6.0 14.44 17.27
Mean/
Design
2.574 0.925 3.432 1.2 2.888 3.453
CONCLUSIONS
Some aspects of seismic design of r/c frames recommended by EC8 are discussed. On the basis of the received values
of the behaviour factors q it follows that the proposed Eurocode 8 values of q factor for r/c one bay frame are
somewhat conservative. In fact taking into account the limitations of story drifts the values of EC8 are quite reasonable.
However, further experimental and analytical studies are needed in order to confirm these observations and the received
results.
Acknowledgement
The results presented in this paper have been received in the frame of the research INCO-COPERNICUS project
ENSeRVES with financial support of European Commission.
The authors would like to acknowledge the ISMES Structural Dynamics Laboratory- Bergamo for given possibility to
use information about the R/C frames and the results from the shaking table tests.
REFERENCES
Eurocode 8 (1994) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1.1. ENV1998.1.1.CEN European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Mazzolani, F.M. and Piluso, V. (1996) Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames, E&FN
BREBIA $ Corz, Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures III - Book Advances in Earthquake Engineerting, WIT
press, Southampton, Boston ISBN:1-85312-874, pp. 764, 2001 ( Vaseva E., Seismic design of R/C frames: An
assessment of the behaviour factor, pp.367-376)
Report (1996) Research on Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames - Specimens Construction and Tests on Materials.
Prog. STR-8721,RAT-STR-2156/96. ISMES, Bergamo, Italy
Park, Y.J. & Ang, A. (1985) Mechanistic seismic damages model for reinforced concrete. ACSE Journal of Structural
Engineering Vol 111, N4.
Broderick,B., Elnashai,A.,(1994) Observations on the effect of numerical dissipation on the nonlinear dynamic response
of structural systems, Engineering Structures,16(1),51-61
Elnashai, A.S. Salvitti, (1996), Evaluation of the behaviour factor for R/C buildings by nonlinear dynamic analysis., PN
1820, XIWCEE, Mexico
Valles, R.E. & Reinhorn, A.M. & Kunnath, C.Li & Madan, A. IDARC2D Version 4.0 (1996) A program for the
Inelastic Damage Analysis of Buildings, Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, University of New York at Buffalo