Vulnerability analysis of industrial RC precast buildings designed according to modern seismic codes

Abstract

Seismic performance-based design approach is currently implemented in modern building codes. Design requirements\ud and provisions ensure an adequate structural performance under different intensity levels of seismic\ud action. However, the probability of attainment of a performance level is implicitly considered in the code design\ud approach (provisions and requirements); for instance, the minimum requirements in concrete structures cannot\ud be simply correlated to the probability of collapse of the building as well as to its overall structural response.\ud The aim of this work is to assess the vulnerability with respect to the collapse limit state of industrial singlestory\ud RC precast buildings designed according to the current Italian seismic code. The comparison between the\ud Italian code and the Eurocodes is provided throughout the paper. A parametric study is performed by investigating\ud the safety against the collapse of 40 RC single-story precast structures. Multi-stripe analyses are\ud performed by non-linear dynamic analyses at 10 intensity levels. The fragility of the structures is defined by\ud means of the incremental N2 method, which has been demonstrated to be a suitable method for evaluating the\ud collapse capacity of single-story precast buildings. The results demonstrate that the buildings are safe against the\ud collapse mainly because of the structural overstrength with respect to seismic actions. The modelling assumptions\ud are also validated in order to demonstrate the negligible influence of the cracking on the collapse as well as\ud the importance of the geometrical nonlinearities for precast buildings

Characterization of local and global capacity criteria for collapse assessment of code-conforming RC buildings

“…In particular, the inelastic response followed the peak-oriented hysteretic degradation model developed by and , often referred to as IMK model. This model was available within the software database (Karavasilis et al 2009), and it was widely used in past studies such as in (Haselton et al 2011;Lin et al 2013;Ercolino et al 2018;Ricci et al 2018;Cimmino et al 2020;Shahnazaryan and O'Reilly 2021). The IMK model does not account for the influence of the axial force variation on the moment-rotation response, and a fixed value of the axial load has to be assumed for the determination of the modeling parameters.…”

“…2b), and the effective elastic stiffness K 0 should be ranging between the uncracked and the secantto-yield one; in particular, the implemented stiffness was computed depending on the dimensionless axial force, ranging within 20-60% of the gross stiffness (RINTC Workgroup 2018). The elastic stiffness of the zeroLength element was assumed to be ten times the elasticBeamColumn one according to several studies Ercolino et al 2018;Iervolino et al 2018;Magliulo et al 2018;Ricci et al 2018), with the series behavior equaling the global member response . The formulation proposed by Haselton and Deierlein (2007) and Haselton et al (2008) was considered for the evaluation of the modeling parameters.…”

A Review of Seismic Response of Precast Structures

“…Ercolino et al [42] investigated the seismic vulnerability of precast single-story buildings designed according to the current Italian seismic code through numerical simulations.…”

Effects of Modelling Assumption on the Evaluation of the Local Seismic Response for Rc Precast Industrial Buildings

“…The reference structure is a single-story 4-bay precast reinforced concrete (RC) industrial building considered built at L'Aquila (Italy) with span length along the transverse x-direction equal to 15 m and 6 m along the longitudinal y-direction ( Figure 1). The structural elements are designed and verified [28] according to the Italian building code [29] and commentary [30]. For further structural verifications, not available or not fully addressed in the Italian building code, Eurocode 2 CEN 2004, Eurocode 3 CEN 2005, CNR 10018/99 and CNR 10025/98 provisions were considered [31], [32], [33], [34].…”