Roberto Ramasco

Inelastic seismic response of one-way plan-asymmetric systems under bi-directional ground motions

The static design requirements of some seismic codes, such as the Eurocode 8 and—in most cases—the Uniform Building Code, to allow for the effects of earthquake excitation acting in a direction other than the principal axes of the structure do not apply to one-way asymmetric systems. Therefore, with some exceptions, no specific provisions are considered for such systems to cover effects of structural asymmetry on the behaviour of elements located along the symmetric system direction. Aimed towards fulfilling this need, in this paper, a wide parametric study of the inelastic response of one-way asymmetric systems designed according to Uniform Building Code is carried out, considering two-component earthquake excitations. The analyses show that the maximum ductility demands on elements aligned along the asymmetric system direction are very close to, and even lower than, those obtained for symmetric reference systems. Conversely, the symmetric direction elements undergo significantly larger inelasticity than if they were located in symmetric reference systems. Subsequently, the overstrength needed by the symmetric direction elements to prevent such additional ductility demands for several stiffness and plan configurations is quantified. It is concluded that one-way asymmetry should be considered by seismic codes as an intrinsic system property, thus implying that specific provisions should be included for designing elements located along the symmetric system direction, in addition to those currently subscribed to design the asymmetric direction elements.

Seismic performance of R/C frames with overstrength discontinuities in elevation

The paper presents the results of a research study concerning the seismic response and design of r/c frames with overstrength discontinuities in elevation. The discontinuities are obtained assigning overstrengths either to the beams or to the columns of a “regular frame” (assumed as reference). Two “regular frames” are designed: one according to the Eurocode 8 (EC8) medium ductility class (DCM) rules and the other one according to the EC8 high ductility class (DCH) rules. For all frames the criteria of vertical strength irregularity of many international seismic codes are applied. Non linear static and dynamic analyses are performed; mechanical non linearity is concentrated at the element ends. These analyses are carried out according to EC8 provisions: for non linear static analysis the N2 method is applied; in the case of non linear time-history analyses, seven real earthquakes, selected in order to fit on average the elastic design spectrum, are used as input. The seismic response of frames characterised by the assigned overstrength is not very different with respect to the “regular frame” one; furthermore all the frames satisfy the Ultimate Limit State, verified by the application of non linear static and dynamic analyses. This demonstrates that the sensitivity of frames, designed according to EC8 medium and high ductility classes, to overstrength vertical variations is low. Consequently, international code provisions on vertical strength regularity should be reviewed.

Design of a Plan Irregular RC Frame Building by Direct Displacement-Based Design Method

In this chapter, an application of the direct displacement-based design (DDBD) to multistorey irregular in-plan RC frame buildings is made. A case study is carried out in order to extend and validate the methodology to this type of structures. The design of a torsionally flexible system is carried out according to DDBD, and its seismic performance is compared, through nonlinear dynamic analyses, to the performance of the same building designed according to elastic modal response spectrum analysis. Lumped plasticity models are implemented for nonlinear dynamic analyses, which are carried out according to EC8 provisions: seven real earthquakes, selected in order to fit on average the elastic design spectrum, are used as input. The two different design methods provide very different reinforcement ratios: the DDBD allows a reinforcement saving of about 70% for beams and 50% for columns. In spite of this, the verification at the ultimate limit state, performed by nonlinear dynamic analyses according to EC8, is satisfied. Furthermore, nonlinear analyses show a better response of the structure designed by DDBD: the torsional twist is reduced and the damage is better distributed.