Seismic Performance of Steel MRFs Designed to the Provisions of the Latest Draft Eurocode 8: Case Studies

Lemma, Melaku Seyoum; Rebelo, Carlos; Silva, Luís Simões

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-03811-2_117

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dissipative zones should have adequate ductility and resistance and may be in the structural members or the connections. Depending on the ductility class and the behavior factor q cross-sectional classes of dissipative elements should be chosen [11]- [12]. In this work we consider DC3 Ductility Class to compare the results with the structures designed by means of Japanese approach.…”

Section: Design Rules According To New Pren1998 Draftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moment Resisting Frames under the light of Japanese and European Codes

Maglio,

Nastri,

Piluso

et al. 2023

ce papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the work is to make a comparison between the European and Japanese approaches to design Seismic‐Resistant Steel Frames (MRFs) in high seismicity areas. Therefore, the design rules for both the seismic codes are analyzed and compared. These design rules are applied to design a benchmark structure in DC3 ductility class (according to the new prEN1998) and following the Route 3 procedure (according to the Building Standard Law in Japan, BSL). The examined structural typology is a Spatial Moment Resisting Frames with regularity in plan and elevation configuration. The Japanese approach is divided in two stages. The first one regards the Allowable Stress Design (Elastic analysis) in which all the parts of the structure must be kept elastic; service and damage limitation requirements are in demand. The second stage regards the Ultimate Strength Design (Plastic Analysis) in which no‐collapse requirement and the protection of the human life are in demand. The seismic performance of the designed structures is evaluated by means of pushover analyses.

show abstract

Section: Design Rules According To New Pren1998 Draftmentioning

confidence: 99%