Vulnerability assessment and damage description for R.C. frame structures following the EMS-98 principles

Reinforced Concrete (R.C.) frame structures vary extremely in appearance, design and interaction of structural and non-structural elements. These and other aspects are responsible for the difficulties to present a simple procedure by maintaining the basic inherent assumption of a linear progression of the damage grade with the consecutive intensity grades. The paper takes up the recent state of vulnerability and damage assignment as well as experiences related to the behaviour of infill walls gathered from observations and analytical studies to reveal weak points in the related EMS-98 procedures. Such studies have indicated that the increase of the damage grade of R.C. structures is not always proportional to the increase of intensity grades. Further a proposal for an analytical damage grade definition comparable to the damage grade definition of the EMS-98 will be presented. Conclusions are related to the question: Is there a need to revise EMS-98 guidelines and basic tools? Different elements of information are considered: The World Housing Encyclopedia; the whole surveyed building stock of the test area of the city Antakya/Turkey; results of analytical studies referring to typical representatives of the building stock. There are no serious limits for applying EMS-98 at an international level. The EMS-98 provides an open system for the implementation of new structural systems. For this purpose, the basic assumptions, such as the increase of the damage grade with the severity of shaking have to be considered in relation to the behaviour and already assigned vulnerabilities of the other building types.

[1]  Thomas Wenk,et al.  Report on the Reconnaissance Mission from July 6 - 12, 1998 of the Swiss Society of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (SGEB) , 1998 .

[2]  Kevin Wellenius,et al.  A summary of cyclic lateral load tests on rectangular reinforced concrete columns , 1997 .

[3]  D. J. Kakaletsis,et al.  Experimental Investigation of Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames with Openings , 2009 .

[4]  S. Watson,et al.  Design of reinforced concrete frames of limited ductility. , 1989 .

[5]  Gottfried Grünthal,et al.  European macroseismic scale 1992 : updated MSK scale , 1993 .

[6]  Jacky Mazars,et al.  Seismic risk , 2011 .

[7]  W. D. Gill,et al.  Ductility of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with axial load. , 1979 .

[8]  Corina SCHOTT,et al.  VULNERABILITY OF RC FRAME STRUCTURES IN TURKISH EARTHQUAKE REGIONS (PART 2): MODELING AND ANALYSIS , 2002 .

[9]  Thomas Wenk,et al.  The Adana-Ceyhan earthquake of June 27, 1998 , 1998 .

[10]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo‐dynamic tests , 2002 .

[11]  M T Soesianawati,et al.  LIMITED DUCTILITY DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS , 1986 .

[12]  Jochen Schwarz,et al.  Die Erdbeben in der Türkei am 17.08.1999 und 12.11.1999 - Ein Beitrag zur Ingenieuranalyse der Schäden , 2000 .

[13]  Jochen Schwarz,et al.  Das Magnitude 8.8 Maule (Chile)-Erdbeben vom 27. Februar 2010 — Ingenieuranalyse der Erdbebenschäden , 2010 .

[14]  Jochen Schwarz,et al.  Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation in the Antakya–Maras Region (SERAMAR): Empirical Studies on the Basis of EMS-98 , 2013 .

[15]  Rui Pinho,et al.  Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings , 2008 .

[16]  G. Grünthal.  European Macroseismic Scale 1998 , 1998 .

[17]  C. J. Angholas.  DUCTILITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE PIERS UNDER SEISMIC LOADING , 1981 .

[18]  F. Zahn.  Design of reinforced concrete bridge columns for strength and ductility , 1985 .