Comparison of seismic assessment guidelines using a case study reinforced concrete wall building
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1672Abstract
There are several seismic assessment standards and guidelines available around the world that can be used to identify vulnerable buildings. The assessment procedures and criteria in these documents are different, and thus, the assessment outcomes for a particular building, if assessed using different standards, can also be different. In this study, provisions of the linear static and non-linear static analysis procedures of three prominent seismic assessment documents, the American Society of Civil Engineers /Structural Engineers Institute standard ASCE 41 (2017) [1], the New Zealand Seismic Assessment Guidelines (2017) [2], and the European Standard EN 1998-3 (2005) [3] (also known as Eurocode 8 Part-3 or EC8-3) are discussed and compared, highlighting some of their similarities and differences. A reinforced concrete (RC) wall building used in FEMA P-2006 (2018) [4] for demonstration of ASCE 41 provisions is taken as the case study building for comparison of the assessment provisions. The linear and non-linear static analysis procedures specified in the three documents are applied to the case study building and the assessment outcomes are compared. The assessment results are found to vary across the analysis methods and guidelines. However, the critical governing vulnerability for the building is found to be the same. It is observed that with the simplifying modelling assumptions, coupled with the inherent conservatism in the assessment using linear static analysis, a more conservative outcome is obtained using the linear static methods as compared to the non-linear static methods. Overall, EC8-3 provisions are found to be the most conservative of all three guidelines considered for the assessment of the example building.
References
ASCE (2017). “ASCE standard, ASCE/SEI, 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”. American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Virginia, USA. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414859
MBIE, NZSEE, SESOC, EQC and NZGS (2017). “The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings – Technical Guidelines for Engineering Assessments”. Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), Structural Engineering Society (SESOC), Earthquake Commission (EQC), New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS), Wellington, NZ. http://www.eq-assess.org.nz
CEN (2005). “EN 1998-3:2005. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Actions - Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings”. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
FEMA (2018). “FEMA P-2006: Example Application Guide for ASCE/SEI 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings with Additional Commentary for ASCE/SEI 41-17”. Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA. https://www.atcouncil.org/docman/fema/300-fema-p-2006/file
Lupoi V, Calvi GM, Lupoi A and Pinto PE (2004). “Comparison of different approaches for seismic assessment of existing buildings”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 114(8): 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350523
NZNSEE (2002). “The Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Perfomance of Earthquake Risk Buildings”. New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Draft prepared for the HZ Building Industry Authority.
ASCE (2002). “Prestandard for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, (FEMA Report 356)”. American Society of Civil Engineers for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Virginia, USA.
JBDPA (1977). “National Standard for Evaluation of Seismic Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building, (Revised in 1990)”. Japanese Building Disaster Prevention Association, Japan.
Mpampatsikos V, Nascimbebe R and Petrine A (2008). “A critical review of the RC frame existing building assessment procedure according to Eurocode 8 and Italian Seismic Code”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(S1): 52-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460801925020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460801925020
OPCM (2005). “Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri No. 3431: Primi elementi in material di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica”. G.U. No. 105.
Araujo M and Castro JM (2018). “A critical review of European and American provisions for the seismic assessment of existing steel moment-resisting frame buildings”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 22(8): 1336-1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1277568 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1277568
ASCE (2013). “ASCE standard, ASCE/SEI, 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”. American Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineering Institute, Virginia, USA. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412855
Zaidi F (2024). “Comparison of Seismic Assessment Provisions for RC Buildings in NZ Guidelines, ASCE 41 and EC8-3”. University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ. https://auckland.figshare.com/articles/report/_b_Comparison_of_Seismic_Assessment_Provisions_for_RC_Buildings_in_NZ_Guidelines_ASCE_41_and_EC8-3_b_/24500971
Standards New Zealand (2004). “NZS 1170.5:2004. Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New Zealand”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ. https://www.standards.govt.nz/shop/nzs-1170-52004-includes-amdt-1/
ATC (1996). “ATC 40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of reinforced Concrete Buildings”. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA.
Pekcan G, Mander JB and Chen SS (1999). “Fundamental considerations for the design of nonlinear viscous dampers”. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 28(11): 1405-1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11<1405::AID-EQE875>3.0.CO;2-A DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11<1405::AID-EQE875>3.0.CO;2-A
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures. ISBN: 978-88-6198-0006, IUSSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 721 pp.
Sullivan TJ (2016). “Guidance on the use of equivalent viscous damping for seismic assessment”. New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, April 1-3, Christchurch, NZ. https://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/2016/Papers/O-27%20Sullivan.pdf
NZSEE (2006). “Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. Incl. Corrigenda 1 & 2”. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, NZ.
CEN (2004). “EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1”. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
MBIE (2004). “Building Act 2004”. Adminsistered by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/DLM306036.html
Standards New Zealand (2006). “NZS 3101.2:2006. Concrete Structures Standard, Part 2: Commentary on the Design of Concrete Structures”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ. https://www.standards.govt.nz/shop/nzs-3101-1-and-22006-inc-a1-a2-a3/
Brooke NJ (2024). “Updating New Zealand’s guidance for seismic assessment of existing concrete buildings”. New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, April 9-11, Wellington, NZ.
Elwood KJ, Matamoros AB, Wallace JW, Lehman DE, Heintz JA, Mitchell AD, Lowes LN, Comartin CD and Moehle JP (2007). “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions”. Earthquake Spectra, 23(3): 493-523. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2757714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2757714
Zhu M, McKenna F and Scott MH (2018). “OpenseesPy: Python Library for the OpenSees Finite Element Framework”. SoftwareX, 7: 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009
Kent DC and ParkR (1971). “Flexural members with confined concrete”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 97(7): 1969-1990. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957
Karson ID and Jirsa JO (1969). “Behavior of concrete under compressive loadings”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 95(12): 2535-2563. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002424
Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8): 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
