RESEARCH ARTICLE


Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings Without Seismic Details. Comparison of Nonlinear Static Methods and IDA



Constantinos C. Repapis*
Department of Civil Engineering, Piraeus University of Applied Sciences, 250 Thivon and Petrou Ralli Str., Egaleo 122 44, Athens, Greece


© Constantinos C. Repapis; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Civil Engineering, Piraeus University of Applied Sciences, 250 Thivon and Petrou Ralli Str., Egaleo 122 44, Athens, Greece; Tel: +30 210 538 1154; E-mail: crepapis@teipir.gr


Abstract

The inelastic response of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings without seismic details is investigated, presenting the results from more than 1000 nonlinear analyses. The seismic performance is investigated for two buildings, a typical building form of the 60s and a typical form of the 80s. Both structures are designed according to the old Greek codes. These building forms are typical for that period for many Southern European countries. Buildings of the 60s do not have seismic details, while buildings of the 80s have elementary seismic details. The influence of masonry infill walls is also investigated for the building of the 60s. Static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) for a set of 15 strong motion records are carried out for the three buildings, two bare and one infilled. The IDA predictions are compared with the results of pushover analysis and the seismic demand according to Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) and N2 Method. The results from IDA show large dispersion on the response, available ductility capacity, behaviour factor and failure displacement, depending on the strong motion record. CSM and N2 predictions are enveloped by the nonlinear dynamic predictions, but have significant differences from the mean values. The better behaviour of the building of the 80s compared to buildings of the 60s is validated with both pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Finally, both types of analysis show that fully infilled frames exhibit an improved behaviour compared to bare frames.

Keywords: Existing buildings, incremental dynamic analysis, infill walls, nonlinear static methods, pushover, reinforced concrete, seismic evaluation.