ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of existing buildings

V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece Received 15 December 2005; received in revised form 5 July 2006; accepted 6 July 2006

Abstract This paper evaluates the American FEMA 356 and the Greek GRECO (EC 8 based) procedural assumptions for the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing buildings via pushover analyses. Available experimental results from a four-storeyed building are used to compare the two different sets of assumptions. If the comparison is performed in terms of initial stiffness or plastic deformation capacities, the different partial assumptions of the procedures lead to large discrepancies, while the opposite occurs when the comparison is performed in terms of structural performance levels at target displacements. According to FEMA 356 assumptions, effective yield point rigidities are approximately four times greater than those of EC 8. Both procedures predicted that the structure would behave elastically during low-level excitation and that the structural performance level at target displacement for a high-level excitation would be between the Immediate Occupancy and Life Safety performance levels. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: RC buildings; Performance-based seismic assessment; Non-linear procedures; Pushover analysis; Effective rigidities; Plastic hinge rotations; Chord rotations

1. Introduction Pushover procedures, to evaluate the seismic capacity of existing buildings, represent the current trend in structural engineering and promise a more accurate prediction of a structures behaviour. The American pre-standard FEMA 356 [1] and the recent draft version of Part 3 of the European Code EC 8 [2], which is founded on relevant b [3,4] and CEB [5] reports, adopt the above procedures but have different partial assumptions. The draft Greek Retrotting Code, GRECO [6], acting within the EC 8 framework, accepts the whole European procedure but suggests the displacement coefcient method, DCM, to determine the target displacement, while EC 8 [2] proposes the N2 method [7]. The present paper aims to compare the inuence of the different assumptions of the American pre-standard and the European Codes for the assessment of existing buildings via pushover analyses. However, since both
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2610997780; fax: +30 2610996575.

E-mail addresses: dritsos@upatras.gr, sdritsos@civil.upatras.gr (S.E. Dritsos). 0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.07.001

FEMA 356 [1] and GRECO [6] adopt the DCM method and since a comparison of differences due to the method of determining the target displacement is outside the scope of this paper, GRECO [6] has been chosen for a more direct comparison between the American and the European procedures. Available experimental results from a four-storeyed building, tested at the ELSA Laboratory [8,9], have been used as reference data to compare the two different sets of assumptions. Performance-based evaluations have been made for two levels of seismic action. The rst level was considered as the serviceability earthquake (low-level excitation) while the second level was considered as the maximum design earthquake (high-level excitation). The results of these evaluations are used for a detailed comparison and are divided into the following two parts. The rst part of the paper focuses on local characteristics. Different approximations to determine the available plastic hinge or chord rotation of RC elements at every performance level and the effective rigidity at yielding have been assessed. The second part of the paper presents a comparison of elastic periods of vibration, performance points or target

ARTICLE IN PRESS
224 V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233

displacements, plastic mechanisms, drift distributions and locations of plastic hinges. These global characteristics, calculated according to the two procedures (FEMA 356 [1] and GRECO [6]), are also compared with the available experimental values. 2. Building description A full-scale four-storeyed bare frame building model, constructed and tested in 1992 at the ELSA Laboratory [8,9], has been used for the analytical work of the present study. The building was designed as a high ductility framed structure, according to the then current drafts of EC 8 [10] and EC 2 [11]. The materials used for the building model were normal concrete of grade C25/30 and B500 steel reinforcement bars and welded meshes [8,9]. The buildings behaviour factor, q, was assumed to equal 5 [8,9]. Fig. 1 presents the plan of the building model. Dimensions in plan were 10 m 10 m, measured from the column centrelines [8,9]. The inter-storey height of the ground oor level was 3.5 m and the other inter-storey heights were 3.0 m [8,9]. Further details concerning the construction of the building model, the mechanical characteristics of the materials and the amount of reinforcement can be found in the ELSA report [9]. 3. Non-linear element modelling Plastic hinges were used to model the material nonlinearity. Stress against strain relationships, according to the EC 2 model [11], were used to model the conned and the unconned concrete. XTRACT software [12] was used

to analyse element sections and to calculate exural load resistances. Plastic hinge generalised load against deformation diagrams used for the modelling [1,2,6,13] were considered to be elastic, perfectly plastic representations (the yield stage moment, My, equals to the ultimate stage moment). Twenty interaction diagrams of axial force, N, against ultimate bending moment were produced so that each different column plastic hinge could be represented. The columns had different properties because of differences in geometry, concrete properties, longitudinal steel or transverse steel. Each column plastic hinge had its own axial load bending moment interaction diagram. For the beams, forty-four pairs of exural resistances (positive and negative ultimate moment capacities) were calculated because every different beam plastic hinge had its own pair of exural force resistances. Again, this was because of differences in concrete properties, longitudinal steel or transverse steel. Average values for strength and maximum strain were used to determine the exural resistances (loads and deformations), while characteristic values of the uniaxial cylindrical concrete strength and the yield stress of the longitudinal bars [9] were used to determine shear resistances. 4. Local characteristics 4.1. Comparison of effective yield point rigidities and chord rotations at yielding The axial force at each plastic hinge was approximated by an elastic analysis that took into account the quasipermanent gravity loads. FEMA 356 [1] and ATC 40 [13] suggest modication factors that decrease the elastic rigidity of the gross concrete section. These modication factors usually equal 0.5 for columns and beams. EC 8 [2] and GRECO [6] suggest the following expression for the effective yield point rigidity: EIeff My Ls , 3yy (1)

5.00

where Ls denotes the shear span and yy is the chord rotation at yielding evaluated from the following European (EC 8 [2] and GRECO [6]) semi-empirical expression that is based on the proposals of Panagiotakos and Fardis [14]: yy 1=r y Ls av z h 0:001351 1:5 3 Ls db f y y p , d d 1 6 f c

5.00

6.00

4.00

Fig. 1. Plan of the bare frame building model [8,9].

where (1/r)y is the curvature at the yield stage, av is equal to 1 if shear cracking is expected, otherwise av is equal to 0, z is the length of the internal level arm, h is the depth of the cross-section, ey is the steel yield strain, d and d1 are the respective depths to the tension and the compression

ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 225

reinforcement, db is the average diameter of the tension reinforcement, fy is the yield stress of the longitudinal bars in MPa and fc is the uniaxial cylindrical concrete strength in MPa. It is obvious that the European expressions (Eqs. (1) and (2)) are strongly related to internal axial forces and directly involve one term for the slippage of longitudinal bars at joints. The American modication factors do not strongly take into account internal axial forces, nor do they directly involve any slippage effect. Another issue that affects results is the approximation for the determination of the effective slab width. FEMA 356 [1] suggests that the effective ange on each side of the web of a beam is equal to the smaller of the provided ange width, eight times the ange thickness, half the distance to the next web or one-fth of the span of the beam. GRECO [6] suggests that the effective ange on each side of the web is equal to the smaller of the provided ange width, half the distance to the next web or one quarter of the span of the beam. It is obvious that GRECO [6] gives slightly larger values than FEMA 356 [1]. The calculated effective rigidities for columns from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 6.7 103 to 23.8 103 kN m2 while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 30.5 103 to 57.4 103 kN m2. In addition, the calculated effective rigidities for beams from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 9.5 103 to 18.6 103 kN m2, while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 63.9 103 to 94.2 103 kN m2. Fig. 2 presents a comparison of the calculated effective rigidities of the columns (there are 36 values but some points coincide because of symmetry) and of the calculated effective rigidities of the beams (there are 24 values but again some points coincide because of symmetry), for the direction of testing. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that FEMA 356 [1] assumptions lead to signicantly higher values of EIeff. For the columns, the average of the ratio of EIFEMA / eff EIGRECO was equal to 3.55 with a standard deviation, s, of eff 0.72. For the beams, the average of the ratio of EIFEMA / eff EIGRECO was equal to 5.88 and s equalled 0.71. eff
Columns 55 EIFEMA (X103 kNm2) eff Beams

The EC 8 [2] and GRECO [6] assumptions correspond to effective stiffness ratios (the ratio of the effective stiffness to the elastic stiffness of the gross concrete section) for the building model that range from 10% to 22% for the columns and from 6% to 10% for the beams. As stated by b [4], values determined by expressions like Eq. (1) are signicantly lower than values implied by codes for the design of new buildings [1517]. The chord rotation at element yielding is not required by the FEMA 356 [1] procedure and is only used in internal computer program calculations based on the procedure. In order to make comparisons for this evaluation, the FEMA 356 [1] effective chord rotation at element yielding was dened by Eq. (1). The calculated yy values for columns from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 0.01 to 0.013 rad while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 0.002 to 0.007 rad. In addition, the calculated yy values for beams from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 0.011 to 0.016 rad while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 0.001 to 0.005 rad. Fig. 3 presents a comparison of the calculated yy values for the columns (there are 72 points because each of the 36 columns had 2 plastic hinges and 1 sign as the columns are symmetrical) and for the beams (there are 96 points because each of the 24 beams had 2 plastic hinges and 2 signs as the beams are not symmetrical), for the direction of testing. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that FEMA 356 [1] assumptions led to lower values. For the columns, the average of the ratio of yFEMA /yGRECO equalled 0.3 with s yeff y equal to 0.08 and for the beams, the average of the ratio of yFEMA /yGRECO equalled 0.2 and s equalled 0.06. yeff y As demonstrated by Fig. 3, results for yFEMA are in yeff disagreement with the assumption of b [4], which considers that FEMA 356 [1] implies values for the yield rotation that are approximately equal to 0.005 rad for RC beams and columns. 4.2. Comparison of plastic rotations In order to calculate plastic rotation capacities according to either the American recommendations or the European Codes, a pushover analysis must be performed to determine internal forces (axial and shear) and moments. More details about the pushover analyses (an iterative procedure to calculate plastic rotation capacities) can be found in Section 5 below. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure provides values for the plastic hinge rotation capacity of RC elements. These are given as acceptable limiting values at every performance level and are a function of the type of element (beam or column), the reinforcement, the axial and the shear force levels and the detailing of the RC elements. For this evaluation, programmed spreadsheets were used to create an interactive database [18] of plastic hinge capacities, as determined according to Tables 67 and Tables 68 of FEMA 356 [1]. Specically, plastic hinge rotation capa-

EIFEMA (X103 kNm2) eff

90

45

75

25 5
eff

60 20 8.5 EIGRECO (X103 eff 18.5 kNm2)

EIGRECO (X103 kNm2)

Fig. 2. Comparison of EIeff values.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
226 V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233

Beams Columns 0.007 0.005

FEMA

yeff

0.004

yeff

FEMA

0.003

0.001 0.009

0.013
GRECO y

0.017

0.001 0.010

0.014
GRECO y

0.018

Fig. 3. Comparison of yy values

cities of beams depend on the shear or the exure controlled behaviour, the ratio (rr0 )/rbal., the spacing of the stirrups and the ratio V/(bwd(fc)1/2). Plastic hinge rotation capacities of columns depend on the shear controlled or the exure controlled behaviour, the ratio N/(bdfc), the spacing of stirrups and the ratio V/(bwd(fc)1/2). In the above equations, V is the shear force, r is the ratio of tension reinforcement, r0 is the ratio of the compression reinforcement, rbal is the ratio that produces balanced strain conditions and b and bw are, respectively, the widths of the cross-section and the web. Following on from semi-empirical expressions proposed by Panagiotakos and Fardis [14], EC 8 [2] and GRECO [6] provide semi-empirical expressions for the ultimate plastic chord rotation, yu pl , and modication factors in order to convert average values at the ultimate stage to acceptable limiting values at every performance level. For beam and columns with a rectangular cross-section, EC 8 [2] and GRECO [6] suggest the following empirical relationship: yu pl    0:35 max0:01; o0 0:3 0:2 Ls 0:01450:25 f c max0:01; o h  
n

25

ars fyw c

1:275100rd ,

where n equals N/(bhfc), o and o0 , respectively, equal rfy/fc and r0 fy/fc, a is a connement effectiveness factor, rs is the ratio of transverse reinforcement parallel to the direction of loading, fyw is the transverse reinforcement steel yield stress and rd is the ratio of diagonal reinforcement in each diagonal direction. For the acceptable limit values of Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention, GRECO [6] suggests the following relationships:
LS u CP u yIO pllim 0; ypllim 0:5ypl =gRd ; ypllim ypl =gRd

and gRd 1:8,

where IO is Immediate Occupancy, LS is Life Safety and CP is Collapse Prevention.

It should be noted that the gRd value is used to convert mean values from Eq. (3) to mean minus one standard deviation bounds and is used because of the unavoidable uncertainty of the model. For this evaluation, spreadsheets were used to create a database [18] of plastic chord rotation capacities according to the above expressions. It was decided to use plastic chord rotation capacities instead of total chord rotation capacities due to software limitations. The ETABS computer program [19] provides a model with performance-based point hinges at the ends that are rigid plastic. This model is essential for an evaluation via an event to event controlled pushover analysis with the ETABS software [19]. Calculated available plastic chord rotations at the Life Safety performance level from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 0.002 to 0.042 rad, while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 0.015 to 0.02 rad. In addition, the calculated available plastic chord rotations at the Collapse Prevention performance level from the GRECO [6] procedure ranged from 0.003 to 0.083 rad, while values from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure ranged from 0.02 to 0.025 rad. Comparisons of available plastic chord rotations at the local performance levels of the two procedures that could be considered as similar (Life Safety and Collapse Prevention) are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. Specically, 144 points (36 columns have 2 plastic hinges and 2 directions of loading) for columns and 96 points (24 beams have 2 plastic hinges and 2 directions of loading) for beams are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. At the Immediate Occupancy performance level, FEMA 356 [1] considers small plastic deformations in the order of 0.01 rad for beams and 0.005 rad for columns, while GRECO [6] considers no plastic deformations. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that, on average, the GRECO [6] expression for yLS pllim gives lower values than FEMA 356 [1] while, from Fig. 5, on average, the GRECO [6] expression for yCP pllim gives higher values than FEMA 356 [1]. Even for the case of the Collapse Prevention level, it can be seen that a small percentage of FEMA 356 [1] values are greater than GRECO [6] values. The above compar-

ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 227

0.016

Columns

0.021

Beams

LS FEMA

lim

pl

pl

lim

0.015

LS FEMA

0.019

0.017

0.014 0.01 0.02 0.03

LS GERCO pl lim

0.015 0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

LS GERCO pl lim

Fig. 4. Comparison of yLS pllim values.

Columns

Beams

0.021

0.027

CP FEMA

lim

pl

lim

0.020

CP FEMA pl

0.025

0.023

0.019 0.00

0.02
pl
lim

0.04

0.06

0.021 0.00
pl

0.05
CP GRECO
lim

0.10

CP GRECO

Fig. 5. Comparison of

yCP pllim

values.

isons appear to agree with the statements of b [4]. According to b [4], if the values given by FEMA 356 [1], at the Collapse Prevention level, are meant to be mean, m, minus one standard deviation bounds, then in some cases, for well-detailed elements, they provide larger values than the b- [4] based expressions. Values given by FEMA 356 [1] could be considered as more conservative than the values given by the GRECO [6] expression, if they are meant to be average values (not ms values) at the ultimate stage. In this case, the GRECO [6] values shown in Fig. 5 should be multiplied by gRd equal to 1.8. In addition, it is obvious that FEMA 356 [1] values are generally constant for both columns and beams. In contrast, the GRECO [6] values appear to be more case dependent. FEMA 356 [1] tables give the same value for columns with an axial force ratio (N/(bdfc)) lower than 0.1. For beams, FEMA 356 [1] tables give slightly different values because the ratio (rr0 )/rbal is controlled by the section exural failure mode (failure of steel reinforcement bars, failure of concrete, etc.). Furthermore, FEMA 356 [1] tables do not strongly relate the plastic rotation capacity to the amount of transverse steel. The conforming property that FEMA 356 [1] proposes is a very gross check that depends on the spacing of the hoops (lower or greater than d/3) and on the element shear strength provided by these

hoops (lower or greater than three quarters of the design shear). As can be seen from Eqs. (3) and (4), the European Codes strongly relate the plastic rotation capacity to the ratio of the internal axial force to the gross section compression capacity, as well as the product of the ratio of the transverse steel parallel to the direction of loading and the connement effectiveness factor and the ratio of yield stress of the transverse steel to the uniaxial cylindrical concrete strength. In addition, the shear ratio check, V/(bwd(fc)1/2), proposed by FEMA 356 [1] is not as sensitive as the shear span ratio factor, (Ls/h)0.35, that is inherent in Eq. (3) from the European Codes. 5. Pushover analysis The evaluation of the structural system was performed via three-dimensional pushover analyses. ETABS software [19] was used only as a non-linear solver and a graphical postprocessor because the remainder of the data had been calculated with either programmed spreadsheets and/or databases or XTRACT software [12]. Plastic hinges were used to model the material non-linearity and the ETABS [19] performance-based event to event strategy was used for the solution. Geometric non-linearity effects only were taken partially into account. Specically, programmed

ARTICLE IN PRESS
228 V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233

databases were created for ultimate moment capacities, chord rotations at element yielding, effective rigidities, available plastic rotations (at the three performance levels), shear capacities and element forces from the analysis. All these databases were interactive [18]. For example, the database of plastic rotation capacities received the element forces from the corresponding database in order to calculate ypl values. For the calculation of ypl capacities, an iterative procedure must be used to nd the nal internal element forces. The software could not manage such an iterative procedure and this was done externally. At least three analyses were carried out for each evaluation and for each direction of loading. An elastic analysis was performed to rst yield, then a non-linear analysis was carried out using the ypl capacities that had been calculated according to the elastic element forces and, nally, a nonlinear analysis was performed using the ypl capacities that had been calculated according to the previous non-linear analysis. 5.1. Load patterns According to the technical report [9], the mode shapes had not signicantly changed after the high-level excitation test. Because of this and because of the fact that the fundamental mode had a participating mass ratio of approximately 85%, a modal pattern proportional to the shape of the fundamental mode was applied in the direction under consideration (for two signs of loading). 5.2. Determination of the structural performance level For this paper, it was considered that local performance levels determined the structural performance level in a conservative way. That is, the structural performance level was equal to the worst local performance level of all the primary elements. 5.3. Seismic demand

the maximum seismic action for which the frame had been designed [8,9]. The corresponding pseudo-acceleration spectra of these signals were calculated in order to determine the demand spectra (for target displacement calculation). 5.4. Performance point (target displacement) determination The development of a capacity curve for a structure can be extremely useful to the engineer. However, for evaluation or for retrot purposes, the probable maximum displacement (performance point or target displacement, dt) for the specied ground motion must be estimated [13]. An estimate of the displacement due to a given seismic ground motion may be made by using the equal displacement approximation. This approximation is based on the assumption that the inelastic spectral displacement is the same as the elastic spectral displacement. Because of the possible inaccuracy of this approximation, a signicant amount of effort has been expended in the last few years to develop simplied methods to estimate this displacement [1,7,13,15,20]. Both FEMA 356 [1] and GRECO [6] suggest the DCM, which is based on a statistical analysis of the results of time history analyses of single degree of freedom systems. The application of the DCM for this exercise was applied via programmed spreadsheets and/or databases. An iterative process must be performed in order to calculate displacements from the DCM, as many variables (for example, the structural performance level) are unknown. In addition, bilinear idealisations of base shear against roof displacement diagrams have to be performed. The equal energy rule was applied in order to idealise the capacity curve to the target displacement point. In order to calculate the areas enclosed by the curve, above and below the bilinear approximations, the linear part of the curve was modelled by a linear function while the non-linear part of the curve was modelled by a polynomial function. 6. Global characteristics

Performance-based design procedures propose checking the structural system for seismic demands from multiple Seismic Hazard Levels. Similarly, pseudo-dynamic, PsD, tests were performed for two values of peak ground acceleration, PGA [8,9]. According to the technical report [9], an articial accelerogram was used as a basis for PsD tests. This accelerogram tted the response spectrum given by EC 8 [8,9] for soil prole B with 5% damping [9]. The nominal PGA was considered to equal 0.3 g [8,9]. A low-level PsD test was performed with the reference signal scaled by 0.4, while a high-level PsD test was performed with the reference signal multiplied by 1.5 [8,9]. The low-level excitation test, with a nominal PGA equal to 0.12 g, was assumed to correspond to the serviceability limit state [8,9]. The high-level excitation test, with nominal PGA equal to 0.45 g, was considered to be representative of

6.1. Effective (secant at yield) stiffness It was expected that the different assumptions for effective rigidities (Section 4.1 above) would produce noticeable differences in the structural stiffness. Table 1 presents the mode periods from the elastic analyses according to the FEMA 356 [1] and GRECO [6] procedures. Table 1 also presents the periods measured at ELSA Laboratory [8,9] from dynamic snap-back tests. As stated in the technical report [9], different theoretical models were analysed with different assumptions for the collaborating slab width (ranging from 0 to the full width), the initial stiffness (uncracked cross-section, cracked crosssection) and the inclusion of slippage effect. The range of calculated values [8,9] from these analyses is also presented in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 Table 1 Comparison of periods Period (s) Procedure ELSA theoretical and experimental values [8,9] GRECO Theoretical analyses 0.45 0.53 Dynamic snapback tests 0.53 0.17 0.10 0.06 229

FEMA

1st mode 2nd mode 3rd mode 4th mode

0.62 0.20 0.11 0.08

1.10 0.36 0.20 0.14

1000 FEMA GRECO Target displacement Experimental curve [9] -0.100 -0.050 600

200 Roof Displacement (m) Base Shear (kN) -0000 -200 0.050 0.100

-600

-1000
Fig. 6. Comparison of capacity curves for the low-level excitation test.

From Table 1, it is obvious that GRECO [6] proposals lead to a large underestimation of the structural effective stiffness. If the demand, in terms of section moments, is a small portion of section moment capacity at yielding, then GRECO [6] does not provide a good estimation of element rigidity because GRECO [6] applies to element yielding. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure leads to a slight underestimation. The proposals of FEMA 356 [1], regarding effective rigidities, are similar to the assumptions of codes for the design of new structures and so the conclusions of this comparison may have a wider application. 6.2. Comparison of capacity curves Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the calculated capacity curves (in terms of base shear against roof displacement) and the test measurements [8,9] for the low-level excitation test. From Fig. 6, it is clear that both the FEMA 356 [1] and GRECO [6] procedures are partially in agreement with the test results [8,9]. Both procedures predicted that the model structure would not develop plastic deformations but were unable to predict the value of the experimentally obtained base shear, Vb, that equalled 594 kN. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure led to a base shear at target displacement, Vbt, of 925 kN while the GRECO [6] procedure predicted a Vbt

equal to 321 kN. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure predicted the initial stiffness of the model structure, while GRECO [6] appears unable to predict the initial stiffness. The maximum experimentally obtained displacement of 39 mm was accurately predicted by both procedures. FEMA 356 [1] led to dt equal to 39.6 mm while GRECO [6] led to dt equal to 44.0 mm. Fig. 6 demonstrates that the FEMA 356 [1] modelling assumptions are close to the pre-yield characteristics of structural systems. Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the resistances for the high-level excitation test. Fig. 7 also shows the envelope curve of the experimental values. It is informative to compare this idealised curve with the calculated curves to their respective performance points. As can be seen from Fig. 7, the FEMA 356 [1] modelling assumptions led to an overestimation of the elastic stiffness of the structure and, because of this, the developed experimental displacement of 210 mm was underestimated (dFEMA 164 mm). The predicted base shear at the target t displacement (VbFEMA 1242 kN) could be considered to t be close to the experimental value [8,9] of 1442 kN and the structural performance level was between the Immediate Occupancy and the Life Safety levels. Fig. 7 also shows that the GRECO [6] procedure led to an underestimation of the initial stiffness of the structure and some events of the resistance history are neglected. However, the target displacement (dGRECO 181 mm) was t in better agreement with the experimental value [8,9] than the FEMA 356 [1] prediction. The small difference in the predicted base shear between the GRECO [6] procedure (VbGRECO 1149 kN) and the FEMA 356 [1] procedure t could be considered as negligible. The predicted structural performance level was between the Immediate Occupancy and the Life Safety levels, as was the case with the FEMA 356 [1] procedure. Obviously, the very large difference in effective stiffness observed from the two procedures does not substantially
FEMA 1500 GRECO Experimental curve [8,9] Envelope curve 1000 IO level LSlevel CPlevel 500 Target displacement (after Targ,Disp.) -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0

Roof Displacement (m) 0.2 0.4 0.6

-600

-1000

-1500

-2000

Fig. 7. Comparison of capacity curves for the high-level excitation test.

Base Shear (kN)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
230 V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233

inuence the target displacement. It is worth noting that, in principle, for periods corresponding to the descending branch of the design acceleration spectrum, the target displacement is linearly dependent on the square root of the stiffness. In general, for most existing buildings, it can be expected that GRECO [6] provisions will produce periods that correspond to the descending branch of the design spectrum. Moreover, the frequency content of the pseudo-acceleration spectrum corresponding to the test accelerogram gave much lower values than the targeted design spectrum (EC 8 [15]) for the GRECO [6] model and slightly higher values than the targeted design spectrum for the FEMA [1] model, making target displacements even closer despite the large difference in the stiffnesses from the two procedures. It must be noted that the closeness of the target displacements is a result peculiar to the specic tests. In order to investigate the generality of the above ndings, additional calculations were performed using the EC 8 [15] design spectrum instead of the test pseudo-acceleration sspectrum. The following target displacements were obtained: dFEMA 38 mm and dGRECO 67 mm for the lowt t level excitation test and dFEMA 159 mm and dGRECO t t 273 mm for the high-level excitation test. In addition, if the design spectrum of EC 8 [15] was used, the GRECO [6] procedure would lead to a more gradual manifestation of plastic hinges. In other words, by following the GRECO [6] procedure, more plastic hinges would be created and greater rotations would occur. Therefore, if the design spectrum of EC 8 [15] was used, the plastic mechanism and the performance level of the plastic hinges from GRECO [6] would be closer to the FEMA [1] predictions. It has to be pointed out that the degree of validity of calculated results involving only one time-history of base accelerations is identical to the degree of validity of the test program. 6.3. Comparison in terms of storey resistances Fig. 8 presents a comparison of storey drift displacement proles at target displacement, dtstorey, for the two procedures and the experimental maximum storey drift displacements for the low-level excitation test. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure predicted drift displacements that had an average of 10% absolute difference from the experimental values. It could be considered that the absolute difference (d (Danal.Dexper.)/ Dexper.) was uniformly distributed with storey level (d storey1 9%, d storey2 +9%, d storey3 7% and d storey4 13%). The GRECO [6] procedure did not so accurately predict drift displacements. The average absolute difference from experimental values was 22% and the difference was signicant non-uniformly distributed (d storey1 20%, d storey2 +20%, d storey3 +21% and d storey4 +25%). Fig. 9 presents a comparison of storey drift displacement proles at target displacement from the two procedures and the experimental maximum storey drift displacements for the high-level excitation test. The FEMA 356 [1] procedure predicted storey displacements that had an

4
experimental values [9]

FEMA procedure GRECO procedure

Storey

0 0.00

0.01 Storey Drift Displacement (m)

0.02

Fig. 8. Comparison of storey drift displacement proles, low-level excitation test.

Storey

experimental values [8,9] FEMA procedure

GRECO procedure

0 0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Storey Drift Displacement (m)

Fig. 9. Comparison of storey drift displacement proles, high-level excitation test.

average of 33% absolute difference from the experimental values. The difference was not uniformly distributed and its absolute value increased with the height of the storey level (d storey1 16%, d storey2 25%, d storey3 37% and d storey4 53%). The GRECO [6] procedure predicted storey displacements that had an average of 21% absolute difference from the experimental value and the difference was more uniformly distributed (d storey1 30%, d storey2 19%, d storey3 16% and d storey4 18%) than the difference from the FEMA 356 [1] procedure. The absolute difference decreased as the storey level increased. For the left and the right loading directions, Figs. 10 and 11 present the deformed shapes and the patterns of the inelastic mechanism at the target displacement for the highlevel excitation test, for the two procedures, according to the results of the ETABS software [19]. These gures also show the ETABS [19] coded state of the plastic hinges. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 231

FEMA

Experimental [8,9]

FEMA

B B IO IO

B B IO IO

B B IO B

B IO IO

B B IO IO

B IO IO B IO IO

IO IO IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

GRECO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO

Experimental [8,9]

GRECO IO IO IO IO IO IO

Fig. 10. Comparison of the deformed shapes of the internal frame [8,9] and predictions.

FEMA

Experimental [8,9]

FEMA

B IO IO IO

B B IO IO

B B IO B IO IO

B IO IO

B B IO IO IO IO IO

B B B IO IO

IO IO IO

IO

GRECO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO

Experimental [8,9]

GRECO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO

Fig. 11. Comparison of the deformed shapes of the external frames [8,9] and predictions.

IO coded state indicates that the plastic hinge performance level was greater than, or equal to, the Immediate Occupancy performance level and was lower than the Life Safety performance level. The B coded state indicates that a plastic hinge developed (the section had yielded) and its performance level was lower than the Immediate Occupancy performance level. For the GRECO [6] procedure,

there is no B coded state because the yield displacement is equal to the limit displacement of the Immediate Occupancy performance level. The damage according to the FEMA 356 [1] procedure (12 beam plastic hinges at the B coded state, 24 beam plastic hinges at the IO coded state, 9 column plastic hinges at the B coded state and 9 column plastic hinges at the IO coded state) is greater in global

ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233

terms than the damage according to the GRECO [6] procedure (30 beam plastic hinges at the IO coded state). In order to broadly check theoretical predictions, the middle frames of Figs. 10 and 11 show the experimental results at the plastic hinge level, where the sizes of the rhombuses represent (in scale) the size of the maximum measured total rotation [8,9] for the high-level excitation test. Because of the fact that the present comparison (at the plastic hinge level) is performance based, a brief description of the overall building behaviour during the high-level excitation test, from the technical report [9], is reproduced here: During the test, cracks opened (and closed) in the critical regions of the beams of the rst three storeys and of most of the columns. Only cracks at the beam-to-column interfaces remained permanently open. Neither spalling of the cover, nor local instabilities of reinforcement was observed. Beside the cracks at the beam-to-column interface, which are apparent in the rst three storeys and represent an evidence of local yielding of the rebars, the specimen remained apparently undamaged. In addition, the report [9] stated that: The pattern of the maximum rotations appears to be the one of a weak beam-strong column mechanism, limited to the rst three storeys. Apparently no plastic hinges took place in the beams of the external frame at the intersection with the central column of the second storey. Finally, the report [9] also stated that: The amount of slippage of the longitudinal bars in the joint, leading to an increase of both the xedend rotations and the pinching effect. From Figs. 10 and 11 and from the above brief description, it is obvious that both procedures predicted the plastic mechanism and its absence in the fourth storey. Neither the FEMA 356 [1] procedure nor the GRECO [6] procedure predicted the behaviour of the beams of the external frame at the intersection with the central column of the second storey. The observed damage, as described in the technical report [9] and briey described above, in terms of local performance levels, could be assumed to be between the two predictions. 7. Conclusions The present paper has evaluated the American and European procedural assumptions for the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing buildings via pushover analyses. The FEMA 356- [1] and the Eurocode-based GRECO [6] procedures have been followed in order to assess a four-storeyed bare framed building and a comparison has been made with available experimental results [9]. The GRECO [6] procedure acts within the European Code framework and broadly adopts EC 8 [2]. The conclusions of the present study are as follows: (1) According to FEMA 356 [1] assumptions, effective yield point rigidities are approximately three times greater than those of the GRECO [6] procedure for columns and are roughly ve times greater for beams.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

This is because effective chord rotations at element yielding, according to the FEMA 356 [1] procedure, are in the order of one-third the effective chord rotations of the GRECO [6] procedure for columns and one-fth the effective chord rotations for beams. Because of these differences, there is a large divergence between the two procedures when approximating the initial stiffness of the model structure. The FEMA 356 [1] assumptions are close to the preyield characteristics of structural systems and may be rationalised for low-level earthquakes. The FEMA 356 [1] predictions of storey drift displacements for such earthquakes appear to be more consistent with experimental measurements. If the demand, in terms of section moments, is a low percentage of the capacity, then the GRECO [6] assumptions underestimated the initial stiffness of the model structure because they refer to yielding. However, the range of calculated base shear values, when compared to the experimental measurements [8,9] was greater for the low-level test than for the high-level test. For the low-level test, the results were not controlled by the strength of the structural elements, which appear to be more predictable than the rigidities of the structural elements [8,9]. The FEMA 356 [1] available plastic rotations at the Life Safety performance level are on average greater than those of GRECO [6], while the opposite happens for the Collapse Prevention performance level. The GRECO assumptions appear to be more sensitive to local characteristics (axial load level, shear force level, amount of connement, etc.), while the FEMA 356 [1] tables give case-independent, steady values. As stated by b [4], values at the ultimate stage given by FEMA 356 [1] for the case of well-detailed (conforming) elements could be considered to be more conservative than values given by the b-based GRECO [6] expression, if they are meant to be average values (not mean minus one standard deviation bounds). Because of the fact that these values refer to performance limits (values at the ultimate stage equal values at the Collapse Prevention level for primary elements), it could be hypothesised that they are mean minus one standard deviation bounds. At high-level excitation, the structural system had a low rigidity due to slippage of the longitudinal bars at the joints [8,9]. This phenomenon is directly taken into account in plastic hinge models only by the GRECO [6] procedure. For high-level earthquakes, the FEMA 356 [1] procedure appears to overestimate rigidities and underestimate demand deformations. However, the assumptions for deformation capacities lead the approach to essentially estimate the structural performance level. Undoubtedly, the GRECO [6] procedure followed a more direct route. Some events of the resistance history on the capacity curve were neglected but GRECO [6] essentially predicted the demand

ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.G. Bardakis, S.E. Dritsos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223233 233

displacement of the system (performance point). It is obvious that it also predicted the structural performance level. In addition, the GRECO [6] prediction of storey drift displacements was closer to the experimental results. (6) For the building under investigation, the GRECO [6] procedure predicted higher deformations than the FEMA [1] procedure for high and low levels of excitation. This was also found to be valid when the EC 8 [15] design spectrum was used. (7) Essentially, both procedures predicted the elasto-plastic collapse mechanism [8,9] and its storey-to-storey distribution [9]. Both procedures also predicted the creation of a plastic hinge in a region that behaved elastically during the high-level test [9]. In addition, if the design spectrum of EC 8 [15] was used rather than the test accelerogram, the GRECO [6] procedure would predict more plastic hinges and greater rotations. Therefore, the plastic mechanism and the local performance levels would be closer to the FEMA [1] model. (8) It is clear that, for the building under investigation, the GRECO [6] procedure gave more reasonable predictions for displacements at high levels of excitation, while the FEMA [1] procedure gave better predictions for displacements at low levels of excitation. This conclusion appears to be valid in the more general case when the EC 8 [15] design spectrum is used instead of the test pseudo-acceleration spectrum. Results of this comparison are only based on the evaluation of one model structure, which may not represent all RC frame structures. However, although it appears that the above conclusions could be generalised for the case of framed RC structures with well-detailed critical regions (potential plastic hinge regions) and low levels of axial section forces, further research is required that investigates other buildings using accelerograms with different frequency contents.

References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA report 356. Washington, DC: ASCE for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000. [2] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). European (draft) Standard EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8 design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 3: assessment and retrotting of buildings. Brussels: CEN; 2004. [3] International Federation for Structural Concrete (b). Seismic assessment and retrot of reinforced concrete buildings; b (state of the art report, Bulletin no. 24), Lausanne, 2003. [4] International Federation for Structural Concrete (b). Displacement based seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings; b (state of the art report, Bulletin no. 25), Lausanne, 2003 [chapter 6]. [5] Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). RC frames under earthquake loading; Thomas Telford (state of the art report), London, 1996. [6] Greek Ministry for Environmental Planning and Public Works. GRECO (draft version)Greek Retrotting Code, Greek Organization for Seismic Planning and Protection, Athens, 2004 [in Greek]. [7] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra (EERI) 2000;16(3):57392. [8] Negro P, Pinto AV, Verzeletti G, Magonette GE. PsD test on fourstory R/C building designed according to Eurocodes. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 1996;122(12):140917. [9] Negro P, Verzeletti G, Magonette GE, Pinto AV-ELSA. tests on a four-storey full-scale R/C frame designed according to Eurocodes 8 and 2: preliminary report; JRCEC (Report EUR 15879 EN), Brussels, 1994. [10] Commission of the European Communities (EC). Eurocode No 8: structures in seismic regions (design)Part 1general and building; EC (Report EUR 12266 EN), Brussels, 1988. [11] Commission of the European Communities (EC). Eurocode No 2: common unied rules for concrete structures; EC (Report EUR 8848 EN), Brussels, 1984. [12] Imbsen and Associates, Inc. XTRACTCross section analysis program for structural engineer, ver. 2.6.2, California, 2002. [13] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings, ATC (Report no. ATC-40), Redwood City, CA, 1996. [14] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J (ACI) 2001;98(2):13548. [15] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). European (draft) Standard EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: CEN; 2003. [16] UBC. Uniform Building Code. In: International Conference of Building Ofcials (ICBO), Whittier, CA, 1997. [17] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete ACI (318-95) and commentary ACI (318R-95). Farmington Hills, MI, 1995. [18] Bardakis V, Tassios T. Estimation of behaviour factors of existing RC structures, by means of linear methods. CD Proceedings of the second b congress, ID 9-9, Naples, 2006. [19] Computers and Structures, Inc. ETABSintegrated design and analysis software for building systems, nonlinear ver. 8.5.2, California, 2003. [20] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacitydemanddiagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems. Report no. PEER-1999/02, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1999.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to ELSA (European Laboratory for Structural Assessment) for providing the technical report [9] entitled Tests on a Four-Storey Full-Scale RC Frame Designed According to Eurocodes 8 and 2 and to Imbsen & Associates, Inc. for providing a free license for the XTRACT software [12] within the scope of [18]. In addition, the authors would like to thank Dr. V. J. Moseley for his invaluable help during the preparation of this paper.