You are on page 1of 10

ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE SEISMIC ZONES AND DUCTILITY CLASSES IN THE PROJECT OF BUILDING STRUCTURES.

Carlos Alves

Resume
The NP 1998-1:2010 introduces new methodologies of dimensioning and safety verification regarding building structures. The present work aims to analyse the consequences of those methodologies over the project of reinforced concrete buildings in Portugal. The realized case-study consisted in the analysis of a building located in different seismic zones and designed for two different ductility classes: medium and high. The effect of the implementation of Eurocode 8 on structure project was assessed, including its expression in design and at the quantities of material required. In the near future, Portugal will go through a regulatory transition period relatively to design of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic action. The designer must choose between the Portuguese legislation (Regulation of safety and actions - RSA and Regulation of concrete structures - REBAP) and the European standard (Eurocode 8 - EC8) to ensure the structural safety. However, it should be noted that EC8 comes to impose a level of demand for the structural behaviour higher than the current rules, therefore its use will not be sustainable. The main differences between the two regulations consist in the seismic action definition and in the ductility exploration of the structures. The EC8 considers three ductility levels (low, medium and high) instead of RSA that only sets two (standard and enhanced). The levels of ductility low and medium defined in EC8 correspond approximately to normal and enhanced ductility levels defined in REBAP, respectively. The high level of ductility has no equivalent in the current Portuguese legislation. The reinforced concrete buildings designed for medium and high levels of ductility must follow a specific set of rules, conditions and parameters on dimensioning its elements, including walls, columns, beams and foundations (all primary elements). With the use of these restrictions are intended to obtain the necessary local ductility in the respective critical regions of these elements to avoid the formation of undesirable brittle failure mechanisms, and get the global ductility for the structure to avoid the formation of partial yield mechanisms. If these rules are fulfilled, the level of ductility secured to the structure is compatible with the value adopted for the behaviour coefficient in their dimensioning. The behaviour coefficient value depends on the type of structural system. A high ductility structures correspond values of behaviour coefficient higher than medium ductility structures, as a consequence the rules are more restrictive. In this context, the developed case study aims to examine the relationship between the behaviour coefficient value and the total necessary quantities of each material, since on the one hand to higher values of behaviour coefficients corresponds minor seismic forces but otherwise the design rules are more restrictive. The application of the EC8 on design of structures subjected to seismic action is intended to ensure three objectives: safeguarding human lives; limit structural damage; important structures for civil protection remain operational. In this context, it is necessary that structures are designed for nonoccurrence of local or global collapse to a seismic level with small probability of occurrence, designated design seismic action, and is controlled the damage level in the same structure for a seismic action with minor intensity and higher probability of occurrence than the design seismic action. The damage should not

correspond to disproportionately high costs when compared to the structure itself. These two requirements are accomplished if the two limit states are verified: ultimate limit states and damage limit states. In EC8 are defined two types of seismic action for the national territory. The seismic action type 1 represents a situation of generation intercontinental plates characterized by low frequency, high magnitude and long duration. The seismic type 2 represents a situation of generation intra continental plates characterized by high frequency, moderate and short duration. The seismic action is defined in EC8 by a single parameter: the reference value of the maximum acceleration on base at rock, agR.

Figure 1 - Seismic zones and corresponding accelerations for mainland Portugal.

The Figure 1 shows the seismic zoning for the two types of action and the corresponding reference values of maximum acceleration (agR). For the structure design should be considered the seismic action (ag) obtained by the product of the reference value to acceleration (agR) by the coefficient I. (1) The table 1 presents four importance classes to classification the buildings based on the following parameters: loss of human lives; the importance of building to public safety and civil protection immediately after the earthquake; social and economic consequences associated with its collapse.
Importance class I II III IV Table 1 - Importance class of buildings according to EC8. Buildings Building of minor importance to public safety. Current buildings, not belonging to other categories. Buildings whose seismic resistance is important due to the consequences associated with its collapse. Buildings whose integrity is of major importance for civil protection in case of earthquake.

To each class of importance corresponds a coefficient of importance I. This value is unitary for the class II of buildings subject to a seismic action with a return period of reference. Annex National of EC8 defines the I values shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Value of importance coefficient in function of the building importance class to the two levels of seismic action. Importance class I II III IV Seismic action type I 0,65 1,00 1,45 1,95 Seismic action type II Continente 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,5 Aores 0,85 1,00 1,15 1,35 2

The EC8 considers as representation of reference to seismic action the elastic response spectrum of acceleration at ground level (Sa, T). Contrary to other actions, to define the seismic action, besides considering only the "direct effect" translated by acceleration at ground level, it is necessary to consider the ability of the structures to resist earthquakes in the non-linear response. This capacity results from ductile behaviour displayed by its structural elements and other dissipation mechanisms that can be adopted. The exploration of ductility is considered in EC8 through the use of design response spectrums (Sd, T), which are obtained from the elastic aspects affected by the behaviour coefficient "q". The design spectrum is defined in EC8 by the Eqs (2) to (5).

(2) (3) (4) (5)


T ag TB TC TD Sd (T) q S vibration period; design ground acceleration; lower limit of the constant spectral acceleration branch; upper limit of the constant spectral acceleration branch; value defining the beginning of the constant displacement response range of the spectrum; ordinate of the design spectrum; behaviour factor; lower bound factor for the spectrum. The recommended value is 0,2; soil parameter.

For purposes of defining the value of behaviour coefficient is necessary classify the structural system and define their regularity in plan and height. If the structure is not defined by regular in height, the reference values of behaviour coefficient must be reduced in 20%. The reinforced concrete buildings are classified into several types of structural systems, as represented in the Table 3.
Table 3 - Types of structural systems. Frame System Structural system which resists by frames whose shear resistance at the building base exceeds 65% of the total shear resistance Dual System (frame-equivalent) Dual system in which the shear resistance of the frame system at the building base is higher than 50% of the total shear resistance. Dual System (wall-equivalent) Dual system in which the shear resistance of the walls at the building base is higher than 50% of the total seismic resistance. Wall System Structural system which resists by vertical structural walls, either coupled or uncoupled, whose shear resistance at the building base exceeds 65% of the total shear resistance Core System Dual or wall system not having a minimum torsional rigidity Inverted Pendulum System System in which 50% or more of the mass is in the upper third of the height of the structure.

The value of behaviour coefficient q is defined by Equation (6). (6)


3

For each structural system corresponds a value of "q0" for the various levels of ductility, Table 4.
Table 4 - Basic values of behaviour coefficient. Structural System Frame system, dual system, coupled wall system Wall system Core system Inverted pendulum system Low Ductility 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 Medium Ductility 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,5 4,0 3,0 2,0 High Ductility

For the safety ultimate limit states verifications, the second order effects shall be considered. These can be ignored if in all floors is verified the Eq. (7). (7) interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient; Ptot Vtot h dr total gravity load at and above the storey considered in the seismic design situation; total seismic storey shear; interstorey height; design interstorey drift, evaluated as the difference of the average lateral displacements ds at the top and bottom of the storey under consideration. ds corresponds to the elastic displacement obtained from the analysis for the seismic design situation amplified by the value of the behaviour coefficient in that direction. If 0,1 < < 0,2, the second-order effects may approximately be taken into account by multiplying the relevant seismic forces obtained from the model by a factor equal to 1/(1 - ). To ensure local and global ductility of the structure, EC8 considers the following calculation rules for real capacity: 1 - Should prevent the formation of brittle failure mechanisms or mechanisms undesirable, such as shear failure of resistant elements or concentration of plastic hinges in columns of a single storey. To this end, design values should be obtained by equilibrium conditions considering resistant values at adjacent sections and a RD factor whose value varies from element to element and the ductility class of the structure; 2 - Should be checked Eq. (8) for all nodes between primary or secondary beams and primary columns of frame systems or frame equivalent systems with two or more floors. The condition must be checked in two orthogonal planes of flexion for both senses of the action. 3 - To calculation the resistant bending moment of beams should be considered the slab reinforcement parallel to the beams located in effective width of the flange. (8) sum of resistant bending moments of columns connected to node. sum of resistant bending moments of beams connected to node. To achieve the local ductility is required comply the conditions shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - A- Minimum width (mm); B- Critical zone (m); C- % Minimum of longitudinal reinforcement; D- % Maximum of longitudinal reinforcement; E- Minimum of longitudinal reinforcement (cm2); F- Minimum and maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in critical zones (mm); G- reinforcement confinement; H- Reduced axial forces.

Beams DCM DCH DCM

Columns DCH

Structural Walls DCM DCH

se

se

but, B

boundary elements Na alma

boundary elements

E F

Critical Zones Critical Zones

Boundary elements

_ , for DCM , for DCH , for DCM , for DCH

The damage limit state consists in restrict the relative displacements between floors when the structure is subjected to a seismic action with probability of occurrence higher than the design seismic action. The relative displacements between floors obtained from analysis to seismic action are reduced by the factor in order to take into account the lowest level action and then compared with the limit values imposed by EC8 which are function of the material used in the non-structural elements. These limits are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - Maximum relative displacement between floors according to the material of non-structural elements. is the reduction coefficient whose value is 0,4 and 0,55 for seismic action type I and II, respectively. Non-structural elements with brittle materials fixed to the structure Non-structural ductile elements Absence or fixing of non-structural elements to the structure

Case Study The typical floor plan of the building and data necessary to realize the analysis are shown in the figure 2.

N floors: 2 underground floors+8 above ground (h=2,80m) Structural materials: - A500NR SD - C30/37 Non-structural Materials: - Brick Masonry (brittle material) Soil type C Importance class of building: II
Figure 2 - Characteristics of the building

For further comparison of results, the building was designed for three different seismic zones and two levels of ductility: seismic zone 1.5/2.4, 1.3/2.3 and 1.2/2.3 and levels of ductility medium and high. The study was started by executing a pre-design of structural elements for vertical loads. In modelling the structure it was considered that the properties of bending and shear of elastic rigidity on primary elements correspond only to 50% of the stiffness of non cracking elements to take account the cracking effect. For the seismic analysis of the building it was considered a three-dimensional model of finite elements of bars, assuming a linear elastic behaviour for the materials. For the seismic design situation is necessary to adjust the size / stiffness of earthquake-resistant elements according to the value of the seismic action corresponding to each seismic zone with the aim of verifying the relevant limit states. So in this context, to each seismic zone has developed an interactive process to obtain the final structural definition. After performing the preliminary design of the structure to the vertical loads and do the modelling, we performed a first analysis of the same supposedly located in seismic zone 1.5/2.4 with medium ductility. It was found that the values obtained to second order effects were greater than 0,20, as a consequence it would be necessary to perform an explicit second order analysis. Not following this alternative, it was decided to increase the rigidity of the structure by increasing the dimension of the elements until for the floor more susceptible to second order effects were achieved values equal to 0,20. The structure obtained (Fig. 3) corresponds to a frame system (q = 3,9) in both directions whose size of elements is minimum. With the acceleration increase corresponding to seismic zone 1.3/2.3DCM, there was no necessity to increase the elements dimension because the sensibility of the structure to second order effects remained the same, despite relative displacement between floors having increased, the damage limit states were also verified. With the further increase of seismic action corresponding to the zone 1.2/2.3DCM, it was found that for the same structure, the values corresponding to relative displacements between floors were higher than the limit value which ensures the verification of damage limit states, as a consequence there was a necessity to increase the structural stiffness. In the x direction, for architectural reasons it would not be viable to increase the size of the columns and consequently the lateral stiffness of the structure. In the y direction, the columns that contribute mostly to the lateral stiffness in this direction have a length / width ratio limit. A possible increase of its cross-section length, viable of architectural point of view, could classify them as walls, therefore the structural system in this direction would change. Opting initially by keeping the thickness and the number of vertical elements, the final structural solution for this seismic zone would consist in using walls in both directions with 20 cm thickness, readjusting the size of the remaining elements. However, it was found that, after a first analysis, the wall thickness would need to be 25cm. Thus, in larger direction of the building,
6

the columns of the central alignment of the outer frames were replaced by walls with 2,0 x 0,25 meters, while in the lower direction were replaced by walls with 3,4 x 0,25 meters. The structural system in each direction corresponds to a uncoupled wall system (q = 3,0) as shown in Fig.3.

Figure 3 - Disposition of various structural elements in plan for the seismic zones 1.5/2.4, 1.3/2.3 (left) and 1.2/2.3 (right), medium ductility level.

For obtaining the design seismic forces of the structure were used the design spectrums shown in figure 4.

Figure 4 - Design spectrums corresponding to the two types of seismic action for medium ductility level: seismic zones 1.5/2.4 (left), 1.3/2.3 (centre) and 1.2/2.3 (right).

With regard to DCH structures, for the seismic zone 1.5/2.4DCH it was considered in a first analysis, the frame structure designed for the zones 1.5/2.4DCM and 1.3/2.3DCM. Comparing the values associated to the two

levels of ductility was found that the values associated to the DCH structures were higher in 50%, reaching values close to 0,30 for some floors. For any one linear system with one degree of freedom subjected to an acceleration at the base, and that by approximation the value of quotient between d e/V is constant, the relationship between the values of for the two ductility levels is obtained from equation 9.

(9)

This increase of

values is justified given the values of behaviour coefficient: 3,9 and 5,85 to frame structures

with levels of ductility medium and high, respectively. Therefore, there was a need to increase the structural stiffness. In this sense, the columns were stretched to the limit taking into account the architectural project. The thickness was also increased from 20 to 25 cm (minimum value for DCH structures). However, it was not possible to obtain values of lower than 0,20. Alternatively, it was considered a solution identical to that

adopted for the zone 1.2/2.3DCM (taking q= 4,0) as shown in Fig.5. The dimensions of the columns have been reduced due to the lower intensity of the seismic action, in particular the length dimension of the exterior columns until the limit that checks the conditions of adhesion for the longitudinal reinforcement of the beams that crossing the nodes and for the interior columns safeguarding the maximum value of reduced axial force. With the new acceleration increase, corresponding to the zone 1.3/2.3DCH, it was found not to be able to
7

avoid a possible wall failure by web diagonal compression due to shear. The EC8 considers that the value of Vrd,mx defined in Eurocode 2 should be reduced in 60% for the critical zone of walls. It also states that the forces value obtained in the analysis should be amplified by a coefficient that considers the possible increase of shear value on the verge of exist the yielding at the base of the wall. These two factors combined restrict this verification heavily. One of the solutions to this problem would be to increase the cross-section, notably the largest direction. In the largest direction of the building this solution is feasible, however in the minor direction is not by architectural reasons. Thus, we opted not to use a more robust solution, but by changing the type of existing structural elements, as well the disposition of others in plant, to obtain a configuration which corresponds to a structural system with increased capacity for energy dissipation in both directions, consequently, greater values of behaviour coefficient which provide smaller seismic forces in the structure. In the largest direction we chose to a structural system of coupled walls (q = 5,4) as opposed to only one centric wall on each side. In the smaller direction, due to structural reasons and also architectural, we chose to a frame structural system (q = 5,85). It should be noted that the dimensions of some structural elements like columns and beams are higher than those presented for structural elements of the structures corresponding to seismic zones 1.5/2.4DCM and 1.3/2.3DCM, as a consequence the global structural stiffness has increased. Only then was it possible to obtain values of somewhat lower than 0,20. With the new increase of acceleration,

corresponding to the zone 1.2/2.3DCH, it was found the same kind of situation for the coupled walls existing in the largest direction. As in the previous seismic zone, we chose to a solution with greater dissipation capacity instead of increasing the section of the walls. The dimensions of the columns and beams were increased to overcome the values of exceeding 0,20. To design the nodes beam-columns of DCH structures must be

considered specific rules to ensure the necessary capacity load in these zones.

Figure 5 - Disposition of various structural elements in plan for the seismic zones 1.5/2.4, 1.3/2.3 (left) and 1.2/2.3 (right), high ductility level.

For obtaining the design seismic forces of the structure were used the design spectrums shown in figure 5.

Figure 6 - Design spectrums corresponding to the two types of seismic action for high ductility level: seismic zones 1.5/2.4 (left), 1.3/2.3 (centre) and 1.2/2.3 (right).

The Table 7 presents the necessary quantities of each material and the estimated values for the overall cost for the structures depending on their location and the level of ductility desired considering the following unit costs: steel 0,95/Kg; concrete 100,0/m3; formwork 12,0/m2.
Table 7 - Total quantity of each material for seismic zones and different levels of ductility.

DCM STRUCTURES SEISMIC ZONE A500NR (Kg) Beams Columns Walls Beams Columns Walls Beams Columns Walls 1.5/2.4 7631 20574 0 57,31 84,22 0 679,8 1073,0 0 257.188 1.3/2.3 12713 26960 0 57,31 84,22 0 679,8 1073,0 0 268.083 1.2/2.3 14436 21662 15678 64,40 73,77 74,76 652,1 799,0 651,3 290.916 1.5/2.4 7389 17143 10800 66,20 63,56 74,76 670,5 723,4 651,3 273.529

DCH STRUCTURES 1.3/2.3 9476 21840 11690 70,16 77,48 80,64 694,7 850,1 689,9 285.707 1.2/2.3 15226 36363 0 102,22 112,92 0 968,8 1188,3 0 291.616

C30/37 (m )
3

Formwork (m2)

TOTAL COST

The results presented for the total cost of each structure correspond to the sum of the variable costs associated to the beams, columns and walls with the fixed costs associated to the slabs, foundations and retaining walls. Analyzing the results it appears that the total quantity of concrete and formwork is the same for zones 1.5/2.4DCM and 1.3/2.3DCM because it was considered the same structure. The difference between them consists in the total quantity of reinforcement necessary, since the forces increased due to the higher value of the seismic action. Comparing the zones 1.3/2.3CM and 1.2/2.3DCM, it is verified that despite the decreased number of structural elements the required total quantity of concrete and formwork increased. With regard to the reinforcement, the quantity associated to the beams is also increased. For the columns, there was a decrease in the quantity of reinforcement needed because the uncoupled walls structural system , as opposed to frame system, does not require the verification of equation (8), as a result the design forces are lower and could be taken directly from the model. For the walls, the reduced spacing between straps required to ensure the appropriate level of confinement in the critical areas, combined with the high level of shear that these are subject provides that the quantities of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are similar. Comparing the total required quantities of each material for DCH structures located at different seismic zones, it was found that the quantities of concrete and formwork increased with the increase of seismic action. The increase of total quantity of reinforcement is justified with the increase of the seismic despite the increase of the coefficient behaviour values. Comparing the values obtained for the total cost of structures DCM and DCH subjected to the same action it was observed that for the zone 1.5/2.4 the minimum total quantities of each material are higher for the DCH structures. Although the behaviour coefficient be practically the same at both cases, the higher stiffness of the structure and the requirements related to the local ductility level provide a considerable increase of the necessary quantities. For zone 1.3/2.3 the total required quantity of reinforcement

is higher for structures DCH given the greaters demands associated to the confinement in the critical zones. Regarding the zone 1.2/2.3, the reinforcement quantity is similar for the two levels of ductility, despite of register the greatest difference between the coefficients of behaviour adopted. This fact underlines the importance that the dimensioning of the nodes between beams and columns produces in the total required quantity of reinforcement for the DCH structures with frame system. The Fig. 7 shows the percentages associated to relative increase of the cost of structure for each seismic zone and level of ductility, considering the values shown in Table 7.

Seismic Zone 1.2/2.3


1.3/2.3 1.5/2.4 0,00% 4,24% 6,35% 5,0% 10,0% Relative increase of the structure total cost (%) 11,09%

13,39% 13,11%

DCH Structures DCM Structures

0,0%

15,0%

Figure 7 - Percentages associated to the relative increase of the structure total cost.

As shown by Fig.7, for DCM structures the value of the difference between the percentages associated with two different seismic zones upsurges with the increase of acceleration corresponding to them. In turn, for DCH structures exists a decrease in the value of the difference between the percentages with the acceleration increase. This fact is associated with the higher requirements associated to DCH structures that appear very conservative to zones of low acceleration. For the design seismic situation exists the need to define the dimension / stiffness of the earthquake-resistant elements due to the acceleration value corresponding to the various seismic zones to check the ultimate limit state and damage limit state. This is an iterative process until for each seismic zone is found the final structural definition. Depending on the results shown in Table 7, attests to themselves that the total cost of the structure grows with the increase of seismic level action and ductility. Comparing the results between the two levels of ductility has concluded that choose by one level of high ductility can only be advantageous for seismic zones with high acceleration. The overall increase of the behaviour coefficient value translates into a consequent decrease of the seismic forces, but contrary to what one would expect, may not be reflected in lower total quantities of each material. The large reduction of resistant maximum shear force value in the critical zone of walls, jointly with the large amplification of the shear value obtained from analysis, may require that the designer uses walls with large dimensions of difficult compatibility with the architecture. The reduction of the maximum spacing between hooks and straps of 1/2 to 1/3 of the thickness core of confined concrete and the increase of the critical zone length in columns and walls induce a significant increase in the quantity of required confinement reinforcement. In respect of conditions and restrictions of design defined in EC8 to the high ductility level, note that the same, lead the designer to design a structure with large capacity of energy dissipation, respecting most possible the set of basic principles that ensure initially the proper functioning of the structure under pain of obtain a final solution that corresponds to exaggerated quantities of material and consequently a high cost. However, taking in account the architectural issues is not always possible to found the best structural solution, existing the necessity to find a mixed solution, which corresponds to an ideal price.
10

You might also like