Vulnerability assessment of gravity-load designed RC buildings: Evaluation

of seismic capacity through non-linear dynamic analyses

Angelo Masi

, Marco Vona
Department of Structures, Geotechnics, and Engineering Geology, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 March 2012
Revised 18 May 2012
Accepted 27 June 2012
Available online 3 August 2012
Keywords:
Seismic vulnerability assessment
RC buildings
Gravity-load design
Non-linear dynamic analysis
Masonry inlls
a b s t r a c t
This paper has evaluated the seismic capacity of some structural models which represent real RC existing
buildings designed to gravity loads only, through non-linear dynamic simulations. A simulated design of
the selected structural models has been performed on the basis of the codes in force and the state of prac-
tice at the time of construction. A total of 216 building classes have been dened by varying building age,
number of storeys, the presence and position of inll, plan dimensions, external beam stiffness, and con-
crete strength. Seismic response has been analysed by taking into consideration various peak and integral
intensity measures, and various response parameters, such as ductility demands and inter-storey drift.
The results conrm that the best intensity measure to be used is the Housner Intensity I
H
, and that all
the response parameters have correlation coefcient values statistically signicant with I
H
, but the best
correlation is obtained between I
H
and drift. Different performances have been discussed with regard to
two main groups of results relevant to building age. Inll distribution and height play the most inuential
role in building performance among the parameters adopted to classify the structural types. The analyses
performed in the present paper deal with structural types representative of whole buildings and can thus
be seen as verifying and extending results already available on plane frames.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
During past earthquakes (e.g. Southern Italy 1980, Turkey 1999,
LAquila 2009) Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings designed either
with outdated or non-anti-seismic criteria have often displayed
unsatisfactory seismic behaviour. However, RC buildings currently
represent a large proportion of the building stock in many coun-
tries all over the world, including Italy and other Mediterranean
earthquake-prone countries and thus an assessment of their seis-
mic vulnerability is mandatory. The specicity of the problem, par-
ticularly in large scale evaluations, requires ad hoc methods that
are both sufciently reliable and not too costly.
Although a number of studies are currently available on the
subject (e.g. [16]), an examination of them shows that some is-
sues require further consideration.
Models which are representative of real structures typically
present in the built environment under examination are necessary
for an adequate analysis. Moreover, for European buildings, perfor-
mance evaluations provided in approaches such as HAZUS devel-
oped in the US by FEMANIBS [1] as well as in other specic
studies (e.g. [7]) cannot be directly adopted. These studies are rel-
evant to specic RC style constructions and are sometimes based
on empirical formulas calibrated on the observed behavior and
damage data from local earthquakes. A rst step towards overcom-
ing these and other shortcomings of existing studies has been ta-
ken in the Risk-UE Project An advanced approach to earthquake
risk scenarios with application to different European towns [8], -
nanced by the European Commission in the period 20012004.
Many research centres were involved in the project, whose main
objective was to develop a general and modular methodology to
create earthquake-risk scenarios specically relevant to European
towns (see studies specically devoted to RC buildings reported
in [3,4]).
Existing RC buildings frequently have a framed structure. Ma-
sonry inlls have a signicant inuence on the seismic behaviour
of such structural types which has to be recognized, particularly
when their design takes into account only vertical loads. Thus, re-
sults obtained in studies where their contribution has been ne-
glected (e.g. [5]) need to be updated.
The recognition of the fundamental role of seismic input in
evaluating seismic response (e.g. [2]) means that results based on
non-linear static analyses, such as those achieved in the RISK-UE
Project as well as in other specic studies (e.g. [5]), need to be val-
idated through more realistic non-linear dynamic analyses. Specif-
ically, Kwon and Elnashai [2] stated that: (i) at high ground motion
levels, material properties contribute to the variability in structural
response, but the resulting variability is much smaller than that
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.043

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: angelo.masi@unibas.it (A. Masi).
Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ engst r uct
due to ground motion variability; (ii) input motion characteristics
have a most signicant effect on vulnerability curves. On the other
hand, dynamic simulations require input motions having duly se-
lected characteristics [6].
A specic procedure based on these premises has already been
proposed and applied in [9], where structures widely present in the
Italian and European building stock, and representative of low-
mid- and high-rise building types designed only to vertical loads,
were considered. The main results reported in [9] highlighted the
strong role of the seismic input. Therefore, meticulous consider-
ation is required when ground motions are selected and thus the
choice of articial accelerograms generated in line with some
codes (e.g. Eurocode 8 [10]) appears inadequate for vulnerability
assessment evaluations: if compared assuming equal PGA values,
they are too onerous with respect to recorded accelerograms, be-
cause of their damage potential and frequency content.
The studies carried out in [6,9] were relevant to plane frames
extracted from real buildings. Consequently, it is deemed that if
the whole building is analyzed, the achieved seismic response
can manifest some variation. In fact, real buildings, made of plane
frames with different dynamic characteristics, strength and ductile
capacity, show a more complicated non-linear dynamic behaviour.
The procedure however, inherits further developments as it is able
to provide a realistic evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of RC
existing buildings designed only to vertical loads. For these
reasons, further studies aimed at an improved evaluation of the
vulnerability of building types by taking into account the interac-
tions between the different plane types have been performed in
recent years, and the main results are presented in this paper.
The main objective of the paper is to identify the inuence of
some structural parameters on the non-linear seismic behaviour
of gravity load designed RC buildings. Specically, the role of
construction age, dimensions in plan and elevation, presence and
position of inll walls and, nally, of concrete strength has been
evaluated through non-linear dynamic analyses. Such an evaluation
is a necessary preparatory step towards the setting up and
denition of fragility curves of structural types representative of
Italian and European RC building stock. Although studies dealing
with the same topic are already present in the technical literature,
they were performed either on few sample structures (one max
two) accurately modelled and studied (e.g. [11]) or on an extensive
set of structural models achieved from an automatic generation
process (e.g. [12]). Moreover, the studies have generally been based
on push-over analyses (such as those performed in the framework
of the RISK-UE Project) and thus their results should be validated
through more realistic non-linear dynamic simulations.
2. Methodology
Assessing existing RC buildings is a much more difcult task
than designing new ones, because it requires working on struc-
tures of which only a limited knowledge can usually be obtained.
There are difculties in determining current material properties
and possible deterioration conditions carefully, as well as in
obtaining sufciently accurate knowledge of some structural data
(e.g. amount and location of reinforcement) as appropriate techni-
cal documentation is rarely available.
A crucial aspect when attempting to gain information about the
structural characteristics of a building is the period of its construc-
tion. When technical documentation is either not available or
insufcient, valuable data can be obtained by referring to the struc-
tural codes in force, the adopted design methods and the adopted
practices which were common at the time of construction. By using
all the information obtainable from the above sources, a group of
structural characteristics typical of the buildings of a certain period
and located within a certain region can be determined. In particu-
lar, specications on the prescribed values of loads and material
strengths, as well as the minimum values of the dimensions of
structural elements and of reinforcement amounts can be derived
by reference to the codes in force. However, there are difculties in
ascertaining: (i) the values of internal forces actually used in the
safety verications, (ii) the location of reinforcement and, (iii) the
detailing solutions. For this reason, reference has to be made to
the structural design handbooks commonly adopted in the period
(e.g., in Italy, [13]) and to the technical documentation of real
buildings found in the archives of public administrations, building
rms and professional ofces. From the handbooks more accurate
indications can be obtained regarding the design methods and the
arrangement of reinforcement in the structural elements. Techni-
cal documentation of real buildings shows design and construction
rules actually adopted in practice, thus enabling verication of the
reliability of the data obtained from codes and handbooks.
On the basis of the knowledge obtained in this manner of the
structural characteristics of existing buildings, it was possible to
implement a procedure for the vulnerability evaluation of RC
framed structures, representative of typical dwelling buildings
[9]. It is made up of ve main steps:
1. selection of some structural types of RC buildings, typical of the
period and of the region under examination;
2. carrying out of a simulated design of the structural types based
on regulatory documents and state of the practice used at the
time of construction;
3. calculation of the seismic response through non-linear dynamic
analyses;
4. evaluation of the performances by means of response vs. inten-
sity relationships relevant to some structural and non-struc-
tural response parameters (drift, ductility demands, etc.);
5. analysis of the increase in degree of damage with increasing
seismic intensities, thus determining the seismic vulnerability
of each type through two alternative approaches:
a. assignination of vulnerability classes, according to the Euro-
pean Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98 [14]);
b. derivation of fragility curves dening the conditional proba-
bility of being within or exceeding a certain damage state.
Based on the above results, the seismic vulnerability of individ-
ual or groups of buildings can be evaluated by placing them in the
different structural types on the basis of their main structural char-
acteristics (period of construction, plan dimensions, number of sto-
ries, expected material strengths, characteristics of inlls, etc.). The
required characteristics can be collected by means of a rapid and
relatively inexpensive eld survey, thus making the procedure
suitably applicable in large scale vulnerability evaluations.
The procedure has already been applied to plane frames by
assigning the EMS-98 vulnerability classes (step 5.1). An applica-
tion of such studies is reported in [15], where the contribution of
several Italian research centres to the USGS PAGER Project
(http://www.earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/) is given. A
good capacity in estimating mean collapse probabilities of Italian
RC buildings designed only to gravity loads is shown.
The present paper focuses on steps 14 dealing with structural
models representative of whole buildings, thus verifying and
extending results already available on plane models. Specically,
the main results of steps 3 and 4 are described indicating the struc-
tural parameters which have a signicant inuence on the seismic
performances of the structures under study. Based on these results,
fragility curves for the main structural types representing existing
RC buildings can be achieved (alternative approach, step 5.2) and
their computation is currently in progress.
258 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
2.1. Selection of structural types
The most widespread types have been drawn from the survey of
population and building stock carried out over the entire Italian
territory by the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT census,
http://www.istat.it). Specically, data collected during the 1991
and 2001 ISTAT surveys has been analyzed. Information relevant
to typical existing buildings without seismic design has also been
used, by reviewing the original technical documentation or, when
possible, inspecting as-built structures. As a result, the following
aspects which can have a remarkable inuence on global seismic
behaviour, have been found:
the structural system of Italian residential RC buildings is pre-
dominantly made up of moment resisting frames;
building structures generally have a rectangular plan shape;
frames are present in one direction only, generally the longer
one (longitudinal), whilst in the orthogonal direction the frames
are present on the external sides only;
typically, stiffness distribution is almost symmetric in both
principal directions in plan;
along the external frames unreinforced inll masonry walls are
present, usually with several large openings along the longitu-
dinal facades.
This information has been used to dene some building types,
characterized by symmetric plan shape, greater length in the lon-
gitudinal direction where frames connected by beams are typically
present, and frames without beams in the transversal direction. To-
tal length is variable depending on length and number of spans.
The average value of span number is 5, variable in the 310 range.
Inter-storey height is generally equal to 3.0 m. Most of the existing
buildings have a number of storeys in the range 210, leading to a
total building height variable from 6 m to 30 m. In Fig. 1, the se-
lected building types are shown, where 2-, 4- and 8-storey frames
have been considered, representative of low-, mid- and high-rise
buildings, respectively. In the exterior frames, the presence and po-
sition of inll masonry walls have also been considered, thus
obtaining the following types:
frames without effective inlls, i.e. with inlls having many
and/or very large openings or badly connected to the structure
so that their contribution to the strength and stiffness of the
structure can be neglected (BF, Bare Frame);
frames with regularly arranged masonry inlls (IF, Inlled
Frame);
frames without masonry inlls at the ground oor (PF, Pilotis
Frame).
Besides, an examination of the technical documentation and the
congurations observed in the Italian building stock, has led to the
denition of three beam types (Fig. 2, on the left) on the basis of
their stiffness: (i) Rigid Beams RB (beams having width b = 30 cm
and depth h = 50 cm), (ii) Flexible Beams FB (wide beams having
b = 70 cm and h = 22 cm), and (iii) No Beams NB (in this case a strip
of the tile lintel oor diaphragm connecting the columns is consid-
ered). NB are generally present along the internal frames in the
transverse direction, while RB and FB can be present in the external
frames. Combining the different beam congurations with two dif-
ferent plan dimensions (small and large area) four cases have been
considered (Fig. 2, on the right): cases 1 and 3 with RB beams, cases
2 and 4 with FB beams.
The building types analysed in the present paper correspond
essentially to the ones reported in the Building Typology Matrix
(BTM) of the Risk-UE Project. With regard to the irregular RC
frames (RC3.2 type in RISK-UE), particular emphasis is devoted to
the structural type representative of buildings with pilotis (PF type
in this study).
2.2. Simulated design
A simulated design of the structural types under study has been
carried out by taking into account gravity loads only. Two con-
struction periods have been considered by making reference to
the structural codes for RC buildings in effect in Italy before and
after 1971.
There are two main codes for the design of structures without
seismic criteria:
1. the Royal Decree n. 2239 of 1939 (R.D. 1939 [16]), that regu-
lated the design of RC buildings up to 1971;
2. the 1971 Law and the consequent issue of Ministerial Decrees
(D.M.), the rst one of which was the D.M. 30/5/1972 (D.M.
1972 [17]).
R.D. 1939 provided extremely poor rules concerning both de-
sign and construction activities, particularly with regard to rein-
forcement details. No rules were given for design actions and
structural details. The allowable stress method was prescribed in
the safety verications. Concrete was classied by means of the
average cubic resistance (R
cm
) at 28 days of ageing: R
cm
had to be
at least three times the resistance value adopted in the calculations
and contained in the range 120180 kg/cm
2
. Steel, generally in
smooth bars, was characterized by nominal allowable strength val-
ues variable in 14002000 kg/cm
2
range, according to the adopted
type.
Fig. 1. Number of storeys (on the left) and inll distributions (on the right) of the building types considered in the study.
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 259
D.M. 1972 introduced signicant changes with respect to R.D.
1939. Nominal concrete strength, to be given in terms of character-
istic values (R
ck
), was variable in the range 150500 kg/cm
2
, then
far higher than the values prescribed by R.D. 1939. Steel, generally
in deformed bars, was characterized by tension strengths variable
in the range 46005500 kg/cm
2
according to the adopted type, that
is A38, A41 or FeB44. For the design of structural elements, the
allowable stress method was prescribed for safety verications. It
is worth noting that, although the limit states method was intro-
duced in the following years, in design practice the allowable stress
method continued to be almost exclusively used. In contrast to R.D.
1939, D.M. 1972 provided some rules on structural details, for
example with regard to the minimum amount and arrangement
of longitudinal and transversal reinforcement in beams and
columns.
To compensate for the poor prescriptions provided by codes
(e.g. about minimum member dimensions and reinforcement
detailing), reference has been made in the simulated design pro-
cess to the most prominent handbooks and to the current design
practice (typical construction drawings) of both periods. However,
also the technical documentation typically provided in design
practice was rather poor with respect to structural details. As an
example, a simple table reporting section dimensions, number
and diameter of longitudinal reinforcing bars was generally pres-
ent for column members. No or poor indications on transverse
reinforcement were usually given. As a consequence, most of the
information for the simulated design of the structural elements
has been taken from the commonly used handbooks.
Two main classes have been considered according to the period
of construction of buildings, that is buildings realized before 1971
(Ante71, R.D. 1939 was in effect) and after 1971 (Post71, using
D.M.1972). However, the simulated design procedure adopted for
Ante71 structures is not very different from the one adopted for
Post71 ones, the main difference being in material properties.
Internal force values have been computed on the basis of the
characteristic values of dead and live loads. Live loads were as-
sumed equal to 2.0 kN/m
2
, as prescribed for residential buildings.
In designing structural members, safety verications have been
performed according to the allowable stress method, assuming dif-
ferent mechanical properties of materials for the buildings built
before and after 1971. The values adopted in the study are summa-
rized in Table 1.
The columns have been designed by taking into account axial
load only and adopting the minimum requirements provided in
the code and in the handbooks of the reference period. As an exam-
ple, in the mid-rise (4-storey) building types designed after 1971,
the columns of the external frames always have square sections
with 0.30 m dimension. The same occurs in the interior frames,
with the exception of the middle column at the I oor level which
has 0.30 0.40 m dimensions. All the columns have four reinforce-
ment bars with diameter equal to 16 mm, 14 mm and 12 mm at
the I, II and IIIIV oor level, respectively. Percentage values are
in the 0.500.68% range. Transverse reinforcement is made up of
6 mm hoops with constant spacing equal to 0.15 m. The beams
have been designed on the basis of the simplied model of contin-
uous beam resting on simple supports. They have dimensions
30 50 cm (Rigid Beam) or 70 22 cm (Flexible Beam). Beam
reinforcement remains constant along the building height. Shear
reinforcement is formed by 45 inclined steel bars resulting from
the reinforcement arranged according to the bending moment dia-
gram, and adding the hoops (diameter equal to 6 mm) requested
by either shear values or minimum code requirements. Member
dimensions, reinforcement amount and arrangement in beams
are reported in Fig. 3.
Inlls are usually made of two layers of hollow brick masonry
(Fig. 4a) with poor mechanical characteristics (Fig. 4b), and a total
gross thickness equal to about 30 cm (external panel 12 cm, hollow
space about 10 cm, internal panel 8 cm) for structures built both
before and after 1971.
Generally speaking, Ante71 types can be considered as repre-
sentative of non-ductile RC framed buildings with poor construc-
tion quality (e.g. with low concrete strength and smooth steel
bars), whereas Post71 buildings can be considered as representa-
tive of non-ductile RC framed buildings with medium construction
quality (e.g. with medium concrete strength and deformed steel
bars). Such building types are widely used also in other parts of
the world, so that studying their performances can be benecial
for other regions and not limited to the Italian community. Partic-
ularly, RC framed structures with masonry inlls are extensively
used in many countries, e.g. they comprises approximately 75%
of the building stock in Turkey, about 60% in Colombia, and over
30% in Greece [18].
2.3. Selection of seismic input
Seismic input has a fundamental role in the non-linear seismic
response of structures, as widely discussed in the technical litera-
ture (e.g. [2,6,9,19]). Specically, in [6] the importance of an accu-
rate selection of the accelerograms to be used in vulnerability
studies is demonstrated. To achieve realistic estimations of struc-
tural performances, such a selection needs to be based on intensity
measures capable of appropriately representing the damage poten-
tial of real seismic events. Following this approach, accelerograms
recorded during real earthquakes prove to be the more appropriate
choice when performing vulnerability studies on RC buildings.
Fig. 2. Transverse beam types (on the left) and plan dimensions (on the right) of the building types.
260 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
Therefore, in the present study reference is made to the re-
corded accelerograms contained in the European Strong-Motion
Database (ESMD, [20]. In this Database there are about 400 records
with sufcient quality and pertaining to the Italian territory.
Among these, 50 accelerograms have been used to analyse the
damage potential of Italian-like earthquakes. The selection has
been carried out to encompass a wide range of values of the follow-
ing intensity measures:
Peak Ground Acceleration PGA
Peak Ground Velocity PGV
Arias Intensity
I
A

p
2g

R
t
0
a
2
tdt
Housner Intensity
I
H

R
2:5
0:1
S
v
T; n 0:05dT
Effective duration (according to
Trifunac and Brady, [21])
t
d
Particularly, as shown in Fig. 5 where the relationship PGAI
H
is
displayed, the PGA values of the 50 accelerograms encompass the
range 0.050.50 g. The large scatter of I
H
values for equal PGA val-
ues should be noted, and is further discussed in the results section.
The values of the above listed intensity measures for all the 50
selected accelerograms, together with their identication code in
the EMSD, are reported in Appendix A.
2.4. Modeling
Numerical simulations have been performed through Non-Lin-
ear Dynamic Analysis (NLDA). NLDA provides the most accurate
method for evaluating the inelastic seismic response of RC struc-
tures, particularly as a result of its peculiar ability to take into ac-
count the real characteristics of the seismic input and the evolution
of the structural response (cyclic degrading behavior and dissipa-
tion capacities).
NLDAs on RC structures can be performed using both a macro-
modeling based on lumped plasticity and a more computationally
demanding ber element modeling. The latter, theoretically more
rened, requires the introduction of many parameters in order to
describe the cyclic behaviour of component materials and of their
interactions. Their experimental evaluation can be extremely dif-
cult. Moreover, since the computational effort can be very high,
this approach is not suitable for huge parametric analyses. On
the other hand, the lumped plasticity option is able to provide an
accurate evaluation of non-linear and degrading behavior, typical
of the structures under consideration when subjected to high seis-
mic loads, on the condition that a careful selection and calibration
of the hysteretic parameters is made.
In this study, with the aim of maintaining the computational ef-
fort within reasonable limits in performing NLDAs, the computer
program IDARC [22] was used adopting a lumped plasticity model-
ing based on the three-parameter hysteretic Park model [23,24].
This model, based on a tri-linear monotonic envelope, is able to
capture the non-linear behavior of RC structural elements [25]
with adequate accuracy taking into account stiffness degradation,
strength deterioration, and pinching effect (Fig. 6). It has been
widely tested with reference to the behavior of damaged buildings
observed after seismic events [23], as well as to laboratory tests on
structures and sub-assemblages [26]. The values of the degrading
parameters for Ante71 and Post71 structures are reported in Tables
2 and 3, respectively. They were determined by referring to the
work of Ghobarah et al. [27], and to the experimental results ob-
tained by Kunnath et al. [28,29], Liu and Park [30], Pampanin
et al. [31], on sub-assemblages having details typically found in
gravity load designed buildings. Specically, the adverse effects
of smooth bars typically used in Ante71 structures have been con-
sidered by modifying the model parameters proposed in [27] on
the basis of the test results in [30,31].
Two 2D-models, one in each direction of motion corresponding
to the principal axes of the structure (long. X, transv. Y), where
oors are modelled as rigid diaphragms, were prepared and ana-
lysed. Each 2D-model is made up of all the plane frames present
in the related direction lined up and slaved at each oor (pseu-
do-3D models). This modelling is based on an equal displacement
hypothesis at each oor, assuming that diaphragms exhibit suf-
ciently in plan stiffness to be modelled as rigid. As shown in [32],
such an assumption can be considered valid for RC oor slabs with
dimensions and characteristics (e.g. absence of large openings or
re-entrances) such as those present in the buildings under
examination.
In addition to energy dissipation due to hysteresis, viscous
damping has also been considered, by assuming the mass-propor-
tional damping and the stiffness-proportional damping constants
as a function of the frequencies of vibration and of the equivalent
damping ratios n
1
and n
2
of the 1st and 2nd mode. The values of
n
1
and n
2
are taken as equal to 2%, with the exception of the frames
without effective inlls (BF types) where n
1
and n
2
have been as-
sumed equal to 5% [33] to take into account the presence of inlls
not effective in sustaining seismic loading but able to dissipate
some energy.
As stated above at Section 2.2, in RC existing buildings inlls are
usually made of two layers of hollow brick masonry with a total
net thickness equal to about 200 mm and scarce mechanical char-
acteristics. Taking into account the modeling capabilities of the
program used in this study, each panel has been modeled by using
a 2D nite element based on the WenBouc model [34,35] able to
adequately take into account stiffness degradation, strength dete-
rioration, pinching effect, and non-symmetric response (Fig. 7).
The degrading parameters have been selected so as to reproduce
the experimental behaviour of inlls panels inserted in RC struc-
tures. Panel dimensions in the models have been dened using
the expression due to Mainstone [36], relevant to rectangular ma-
sonry panels put in RC frames.
Table 1
Properties of concrete and steel assumed for Post71 and Ante71 RC buildings.
Cubic characteristic
resistance
R
ck
= 12 MPa
Buildings built before 1971 (Ante71)
Concrete C 10/12 Cylindrical characteristic
resistance
f
ck
= 10 MPa
Cylindrical average
resistance
f
cm
= 16 MPa
Ultimate deformation e
cu
= 0.5%
Steel Type Aq42 Characteristic yielding
resistance
f
yk
= 280 MPa
Average yielding resistance f
ym
= 250 MPa
Ultimate deformation e
su
= 2%
Buildings built after 1971 (Post71)
Concrete C 20/25 Cubic characteristic
resistance
R
ck
= 25 MPa
Cylindrical characteristic
resistance
f
ck
= 20 MPa
Cylindrical average
resistance
f
cm
= (f
ck
+ 8) = 28 MPa
Ultimate deformation e
cu
= 0.5%
Steel Type A38
(Feb38 K)
Characteristic yielding
resistance
f
yk
= 380 MPa
Average yielding resistance f
ym
= 400 MPa
Ultimate deformation e
su
= 2%
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 261
Fig. 3. Dimensions, amount and arrangement of reinforcement in: (a) Rigid Beams and (b) Flexible Beams.
Fig. 4. Two-layers masonry inll with hollow brick panels: (a) transverse section of the panel and (b) damage example in LAquila earthquake 2009.
262 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
2.5. Parametric analysis
The structural types under examination have been categorized
on the basis of the following parameters:
Age (i.e. period of construction Ante71 and Post71).
Storey number (2-, 4-, 8-storey).
Inll distribution (BF, IF, PF).
Plan dimensions (small, large area).
External Beam Stiffness (RB, FB).
Concrete strength (three values according to the building age).
For concrete strength, the following values have been adopted
in assessing the structural types, taking into account the range of
typical concrete properties in the two different periods under
examination:
Ante71 buildings: f
c
= 7, 11, 13 MPa
Post71 buildings: f
c
= 10, 18 and 28 MPa
Steel strength was not included in the parametric analysis be-
cause negligible variation of its properties are generally found in
as-built real structures, with values corresponding to those of the
reference construction period (see Table 1).
As a result, a total of 216 building classes have been dened,
each one subjected to 50 accelerograms applied along the two
main horizontal directions in plan, thus a total of 21,600 simula-
tions have been performed.
Seismic response has been evaluated involving the following
parameters which refer to structural and non-structural damage:
DRB
max
maximum Ductility Ratio in Beams.
DRB
mean
average Ductility Ratio in Beams (max among the sto-
rey average values).
DRC
max
maximum Ductility Ratio in Columns.
DRC
mean
average Ductility Ratio in Columns (max among the
storey average values).
Drift/h Maximum Interstorey Drift at the lower storeys (%).
3. Results
In this section the main results of NLDAs are reported and dis-
cussed. Due to the huge quantity of results, only a limited number
of the most signicant have been selected and presented, as dis-
cussed in the following.
Firstly, results show that the higher values of ductility demand
and drift are always achieved along the weaker transversal direc-
tion (i.e. the shorter one, see Fig. 2) where frames are present on
the external sides only; therefore, in the following only the results
concerning this direction are reported and discussed.
With regard to the considered intensity measures, results show
that the best intensity measure to be used is the Housner Intensity,
I
H
. As was already demonstrated in [37] and, more specically, in
[6] where more details can be found, an integral seismic parame-
ter, such as I
H
, is more effective than peak (e.g. PGA) or spectral
Fig. 5. PGAI
H
relationship for the 50 selected accelerograms.
Fig. 6. Denition of cyclic degradation parameters of the Park model [23,24].
Table 2
Adopted values of degrading parameters for Ante71 RC buildings.
Stiffness
degradation (a)
Strength
deterioration (b)
Pinching
effect (c)
Beams (internal
joints)
1.5 0.15 0.6
Beams (external
joints)
1.5 0.15 0.7
Internal columns 1 0.15 0.6
External columns 1 0.15 0.4
Table 3
Adopted values of degrading parameters for Post71 RC buildings.
Stiffness degradation
(a)
Strength deterioration
(b)
Pinching effect
(c)
Beams 2 0.1 0.7
Columns 1.5 0.1 0.7
Fig. 7. Non-linear forcedisplacement relationship for inll panels.
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 263
(e.g. elastic spectral ordinate at the fundamental period of vibra-
tion of the building) parameters in representing the damage poten-
tial of a ground motion. Besides, in [38] a relationship to convert I
H
into EMS98 intensity has been provided, enabling the use of I
H
in
large scale loss scenarios (e.g. [39]) prepared by using classical ap-
proaches like the Damage Probability Matrices [40]. The compari-
son shows that when the results are displayed with reference to
the Housner Intensity the correlation is higher than using PGA or
the other selected intensity measures. As an example, in Fig. 8
the results relevant to BF-Post71-f
c
18 types (2-, 4- and 8-storey)
are reported to show the correlation of drift values with both I
H
and PGA. As can be seen, drift has a far higher correlation with I
H
than with PGA. Further, in Table 4 the correlation coefcient values
with all the intensity measures, computed according to both Pear-
son and Spearman, have been reported. Small differences appear
between Pearson and Spearman coefcients, globally conrming
that the best correlation is found considering I
H
, even though com-
parable correlation coefcients are obtained with PGV, too. The
lowest correlation values are found considering the effective dura-
tion t
d
. For these reasons, in the following the results are always
displayed with reference to I
H
.
Results also show that all the response parameters have corre-
lation coefcient values which are statistically signicant with re-
spect to the Housner Intensity, but the best ones are obtained for
the correlation between I
H
and drift. On the other hand, drift is
generally considered an effective indicator of global damage on
RC buildings as it correlates well with their structural and non-
structural damage [2,41] also observed after severe earthquakes
[19]. As an example, some results in terms of ductility demands
are reported and discussed on the basis of their correlation with
drift and I
H
. Specically, some relationships are displayed in
Fig. 9, and the correlation coefcient values of the relationships
driftDRC
max
and driftDRB
max
are reported in Table 5. As can be
seen, drift has a high coefcient of correlation with the other dam-
age parameters. Therefore, although all the response parameters
listed at Section 2.5 were evaluated, for the sake of brevity results
are hereafter discussed on the basis of drift values only.
With respect to the role of the parameters adopted to classify
structural types, results show that the variability due to plan
dimensions and beam stiffness is rather low compared to other
parameters (e.g. inll distribution). As an example, the comparison
between the results obtained in BF-Post71-4storey type shows that
small differences are achieved by comparing cases 1 and 3 (smaller
vs. larger plan area, Fig. 10a). Slightly higher drift values in the
types with exible beams, due to their lower stiffness, can be found
by comparing cases 3 and 4 (RB vs. FB, Fig. 10b). Globally, small dif-
ferences are found among cases 14 independently by the number
of storeys and inll distribution (e.g. see IF-Post71-8storey type,
Fig. 10c). Therefore, the role of plan dimensions and beam stiffness
in the variability of structural performance is not explicitly ana-
lysed in the following, but mean values of results of cases 14
are considered.
Particularly, different performances among building types are
discussed by separating the results into two main groups according
to building age, that is Post71 and Ante71 and, furthermore, by
separating comments on the basis of building height, distribution
of inll panels, and concrete strength.
The diagrams in Figs. 11 and 12 display the best t curves of the
results for Post71 and Ante71 types, respectively. In each diagram
three curves are reported relevant to the three concrete strength
values adopted in the analyses.
With regard to Post71 types (Fig. 11), results show that:
Drift values are always higher in the structures with lower con-
crete strength (f
c
= 10 vs. f
c
= 28 MPa) with differences decreas-
ing with the building height. Generally, the difference between
f
c
= 28 and f
c
= 18 MPa is small, while the difference is more evi-
dent for f
c
= 10 MPa, particularly in the 24 storey types; such a
trend is mainly due the decrease of ductile capacities of RC
members, more pronounced when f
c
decreases from 18 to
10 MPa.
The lower drift values are always achieved in the IF types, thus
conrming the positive role of masonry inlls on the seismic
performance of RC buildings without earthquake resistant
design, provided that inlls are regularly arranged both in plan
and elevation. More remarkable differences between IF and
both PF and BF types can be seen in 2-storey buildings. As an
example, for I
H
= 1 m, the percentage difference between drift
values in IF and PF types is on average around 75% in 2-storey
types, and decreases to about 15% in 8-storey types.
Drift values in BF types are always lower than in PF types,
although small differences are found, irrespective of concrete
strength and building height. As an example, for I
H
= 1.5 m, per-
centage difference between drift values in BF and PF types is on
average around 10% for all building heights.
Assuming that for drift values higher than 1.5% the structures
under study suffer heavy structural damage up to collapse [9],
results show that collapse in BF types can be expected for I
H
val-
ues (computed for drift = 1.5%, the same hereafter) starting
from 1.15 (4-storey, f
c
= 10) up to 1.8 (2-storey, f
c
= 28). I
H
val-
ues slightly lower can be found in PF types, while in IF types
heavy damage up to collapse can be expected for I
H
values
around 1.41.7 in 4- and 8-storey types, and for I
H
values higher
than 2.5 in 2-storey structures.
Similar trends can be found in Ante71 types with respect to the
role of concrete strength, inll distribution and building height
(Fig. 12). Concerning their performances, the results show that col-
lapse in BF types can be expected for I
H
values starting from 1.05
(4-storey, f
c
= 10) up to 1.5 (2-storey, f
c
= 28). Larger scatter can
be found in PF types, where I
H
values related to expected collapse
are in the range 0.851.6, with the lower values relevant to 4-sto-
rey structures. In IF types heavy damage up to collapse can be ex-
pected for I
H
values around 1.41.7 for 4- and 8-storey types, and
for I
H
values higher than 2.5 in 2-storey structures.
It is interesting to analyse the differences between Ante71 and
Post71 types comparing the curves in Figs. 11 and 12. Results show
that:
in 2- and 4-storey buildings, drift values are generally higher in
Ante71 BF and PF types, with respect to the relevant Post71
types. As an example, for I
H
= 1 m, the percentage difference
between drift values in Ante71 and Post71 types is on average
around 4060% in 2-storey structures, and decreases up to
about 1015% in 4-storey structures.
Lower to negligible differences can be found in IF types where
the remarkable contribution of masonry inlls, which are iden-
tical in Ante71 and Post71 types, relegate the differences deriv-
ing from structural member capacity to the background.
Low differences can also be found by comparing 8-storey types.
In this case the high values of the fundamental period of vibra-
tion in the structural types of both periods [42] lead to very low
and rather coincident values of response parameters in Ante71
and Post71 types.
As for collapse probability, building age causes remarkable dif-
ferences in PF types. As an example, in Ante 71 types collapse
can be expected for IH values decreasing up to 0.85 (4-storey,
f
c
= 7), while in Post71 types IH values are always higher than
1.1.
Globally, by comparing the seismic behaviour of the examined
types, a high vulnerability can be expected for the buildings with
264 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
pilotis frames, as conrmed in recent earthquakes (e.g. LAquila
2009 [43]). On the contrary, a low vulnerability can be assigned
to the buildings with regularly arranged masonry inlls. An inter-
mediate behaviour, although closer to PF than IF types, is shown by
the building types with ineffective inlls.
4. Summary and conclusions
An extensive parametric analysis has been performed to evalu-
ate the seismic vulnerability of some RC structural models through
non-linear dynamic simulations. Structural models have been se-
lected and detailed in such a way as to be representative of real
existing RC buildings. Coherently with the evolution of the struc-
tural codes in effect in Italy, two construction periods have been
considered, that is Ante71 and Post71 buildings. The same struc-
tural types (plan dimensions, building height, position and charac-
teristics of inlls, etc.) have been considered for both Ante71 and
Post71 buildings. On the contrary, Ante71 and Post71 structures
differ in the properties of constituent materials and, as a conse-
quence, in the structural member dimensions and details (amount
and arrangement of reinforcement). Ante71 and Post71 types can
be considered as representative of RC framed buildings with poor
and medium construction quality, respectively.
A total of 216 building classes have been dened by varying
some design parameters, that is building age, number of storeys,
Fig. 8. BF-Post71-f
c
18 types (2-, 4-, 8-storey): drift values as a function of I
H
(on the left) and PGA (on the right).
Table 4
BF-Post71-f
c
18 type: correlation coefcient values DriftI
H
, DriftPGA.
Pearson correlation coefcient Spearman correlation coefcient
2 storey 4 storey 8 storey 2 storey 4 storey 8 storey
DriftI
H
0.92 0.90 0.83 0.90 0.96 0.93
DriftPGA 0.36 0.23 0.19 0.58 0.36 0.30
DriftPGV 0.90 0.89 0.83 0.90 0.91 0.87
DriftI
A
0.75 0.67 0.64 0.76 0.64 0.60
Driftt
d
0.22 0.42 0.45 0.21 0.27
Fig. 9. Correlation between drift and maximum Ductility Ratio in Columns (DRC
max
) in BF-Post71 types.
Table 5
Ante71 and Post71 types: correlation coefcient values DriftDRC
max
, DriftDRB
max
.
2 storey 4 storey 8 storey
DRC
max
DRB
max
DRC
max
DRB
max
DRC
max
DRB
max
Ante71
BF 0.84 0.76 0.95 0.83 0.84 0.71
IF 0.80 0.77 0.94 0.84 0.90 0.83
PF 0.77 0.73 0.84 0.73 0.82 0.75
Post71
BF 0.91 0.86 0.95 0.83 0.84 0.72
IF 0.85 0.77 0.94 0.84 0.89 0.80
PF 0.82 0.78 0.84 0.73 0.81 0.77
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 265
inll presence and position, plan dimensions, external beam stiff-
ness, and concrete strength. Each model has been subjected to 50
accelerograms applied along the two main horizontal directions
in plan, thus a total of 21,600 simulations have been performed.
Fig. 10. Role of plan dimensions and beam stiffness: (a) smaller (case 1) vs. larger (case 3) plan area in BF-Post71-4storey type, (b) RB (case 3) vs. FB (case 4) beam stiffness in
BF-Post71-4storey type, (c) comparison of cases 14 in IF-Post71-8storey type.
Fig. 11. Post71 buildings: results of NLDAs in terms of best-t curves between I
H
and drift.
266 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
Results have been analysed considering various peak (e.g. PGA) and
integral (e.g. I
H
) intensity measures, and various response parame-
ters, such as ductility demands and inter-storey drift.
With regard to the considered intensity measures, results con-
rm that the best intensity measure to be used is I
H
. Furthermore,
results show that all response parameters have correlation coef-
cient values statistically signicant with I
H
, but the best one is ob-
tained for the correlation between I
H
and drift. With regard to the
parameters adopted to classify structural types, results show that
the variability due to plan dimensions and beam stiffness is rather
low compared to other parameters (e.g. inll distribution). There-
fore, different performances in terms of computed drift values have
been discussed by considering two main groups of results relevant
to building age, that is Post71 and Ante71, and identifying the role
of inll distribution, building height, and concrete strength.
With regard to Post71 types, results show that the lower drift
values are always achieved in IF types. Drift values in BF types
are always lower than in PF types, even though small differences
are found irrespective of concrete strength and building height.
Furthermore, drift values are always higher in structures with low-
er concrete strength with differences decreasing with building
height. Similar results have been found in Ante71 types with
respect to the role of concrete strength, inll distribution, and
building height. Concerning the differences between Ante71 and
Post71 types, results show that drift values are generally higher
in Ante71 structures when considering BF and PF types having 2-
and 4-storeys, while lower to negligible differences can be found
in all IF and 8-storey types. Therefore, Post71 types generally show
better performances than Ante71 types, even though differences
decrease in the taller structures and, also in regularly inlled types.
Among the considered structural parameters, inll distribution has
the greatest inuence on seismic response. This conrms results
already found in previous studies on plane frames, related to the
remarkable contribution provided by regularly arranged inlls in
reducing seismic vulnerability of gravity-load designed buildings.
The analyses performed in the present paper are the extension
to pseudo-3D structural types of previous studies dealing with sin-
gle plane frames. They are the essential premise for setting up fra-
gility curves of existing RC buildings using an HAZUS-like approach
but representative of the specic building stock under examina-
tion. Fragility curves for the main building types indicated by the
results of the present study are being set up and will be presented
in a future paper. The results of the extensive parametric analysis
in conjuction with recent experimental results can also be used
to propose a new damage index including both drift and ductility
demands.
Fig. 12. Ante71 buildings: results of NLDAs in terms of best-t curves between I
H
and drift.
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 267
Appendix A
See Table A1.
References
[1] FEMANIBS earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS99 Technical
Manual, vols. 13, Washington, DC; 1999.
[2] Kwon O, Elnashai A. The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on
the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Eng Struct
2006;28(2):289303.
[3] Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. Hybrid method for
the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng
2006;4(4):391413.
[4] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the
vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng
2006;4(4):41543.
[5] Polese M, Verderame GM, Mariniello C, Iervolino I, Manfredi G. Vulnerability
analysis for gravity load designed RC buildings in Naples Italy. J Earthq Eng
2008;12(S2):23445.
[6] Masi A, Vona M, Mucciarelli M. Selection of natural and synthetic
accelerograms for seismic vulnerability studies on RC frames. J Struct Eng
2011;137(3):36778.
[7] Celik OC, Ellingwood BR. Seismic risk assessment of gravity load designed
reinforced concrete frames subjected to mid-America ground motions. J Struct
Eng 2009;135(4):41424.
[8] Spence R, Le Brun B (Guest Editors). Earthquake scenarios for European cities
the RISK-UE project. Bull Earthq Eng (Special Issue) 2006;4(4):319463.
[9] Masi A. Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed RC frames.
Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1(3):37195.
[10] CEN Comit Europen de Normalisation Eurocode 8: design of structures for
earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings. Final Draft, European Standard EN 1998-1:2003. Brussels; 2003.
[11] Celik OC, Ellingwood BR. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete
frames role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Safety
2010;32(1):112.
[12] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM. A multilevel approach to the
capacity assessment of existing RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 2005;9(1):122.
[13] Santarella L. Il cemento armato Le applicazioni alle costruzioni civili ed
industriali, vol. II, Hoepli Ed.; 1968 [in Italian].
[14] Grnthal G. (editor). European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). European
Seismological Commission, sub commission on Engineering Seismology,
working Group Macroseismic Scales. Conseil de lEurope, Cahiers du Centre
Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie, vol. 15. Luxembourg; 1998.
[15] Goretti A, Bramerini F, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Lagomarsino S, Parodi S, et al.
The Italian contribution to the USGS PAGER project. In: Proceedings of 14th
world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[16] Royal Decree n. 2229 Design code of reinforced concrete structures; 1939 [in
Italian].
[17] Ministerial Decree 30/5/1972 Design code of reinforced concrete, prestressed
concrete and steel structures; 1972 [in Italian].
[18] Yakut A. Reinforced concrete frame construction. World Housing Encyclopedia
Summary Publication; 2004.
[19] Nanos N, Elenas A. Seismic duration effects on the vulnerability of buildings.
In: Proceedings of rst European conference on earthquake engineering and
seismology, Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
[20] Ambraseys N, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjornsson R, Olafsson S,
Suhadolc P, Costa G. Internet-site for European strong-motion data. Boll Geof
Teor Appl 2004;45(3):11329.
[21] Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground
motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65(3):581626.
[22] Valles RE, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Li C, Madan A. Idarc 2d Version 4.0: a
program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings. Technical Report
NCEER 96-0010, Buffalo, NY; 1996.
[23] Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. Damage limiting aseismic design of buildings.
Earthq Spectra 1987;3(1):126.
[24] Park YJ, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK. IDARC: inelastic damage analysis of frame
shear-wall structures. Technical Report NCEER 87-0008. Buffalo, NY; 1987.
[25] Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM. Hysteretic models for cyclic behavior of
deteriorating inelastic structures. Technical Report NCEER 99-0018, Buffalo,
NY; 1999.
[26] Bracci JMG, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
frame structures designed for gravity loads: performance of structural system.
ACI Struct J 1995;2(5):597609.
[27] Ghobarah A, Aziz T, Abou-Elfath H. Softening effects on the seismic response of
non ductile concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 1999;3(1):5981.
[28] Kunnath KS, Hoffmann G, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Gravity load designed RC
buildings Part I: Seismic evaluation of existing construction. Aci Struct J
1995;92(3):34354.
[29] Kunnath KS, Hoffmann G, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Gravity load designed RC
buildings Part II: Evaluation of detailing enhancements. ACI Struct J
1995;92(4):4708.
[30] Liu A, Park R. Seismic behaviour of existing moment-resisting frames with
plain round reinforcing bars designed to pre 1970s codes. In: Proceedings of
12th world conference of earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand;
2000.
[31] Pampanin S, Calvi GM, Moratti M. Seismic behaviour of R.C. beam-column
joints designed for gravity loads. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference
on earthquake engineering, London, UK; 2002.
[32] Masi A, Dolce M, Caterina F. Seismic response of irregular multi-storey
building structures with exible inelastic diaphragms. Int J Struct Des Tall
Build 1997;6(2):99124.
[33] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures theory and application to earthquake
engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2001.
[34] Bouc R. Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis. In:
Proceedings of 4th conference on non-linear oscillations. Prague; 1967.
[35] Baber TT, Noori MN. Random vibration of degrading pinching systems. J Eng
Mech 1985;111(8):101026.
[36] Mainstone RJ. Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of inlled
frames. Current paper CP13/74. London: Building Research Establishment;
1974.
[37] Masi A, Chiauzzi L, Braga F, Mucciarelli M, Vona M, Ditommaso R. Peak and
integral seismic parameters of LAquila 2009 ground motions: observed vs
code provision values. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9(1):13956.
[38] Chiauzzi L, Masi A, Mucciarelli M, Vona M, Pacor F, Cultrera G, Gallovic F,
Emolo A. Building damage scenarios based on exploitation of Housner
Table A1
List of records used for NLDAs selected from the European Strong-Motion Database
[20].
No. ID le PGA (m/
s
2
)
PGV (m/
s)
t
max
(s)
I
A
(m/
s)
I
H
(m)
t
d
(s)
1 000172ya 0.37 0.02 24.6 0.03 0.09 15.1
2 000359ya 0.66 0.04 65.0 0.04 0.16 8.3
3 000980ya 0.78 0.04 40.5 0.05 0.14 6.8
4 000365xa 0.99 0.04 30.7 0.06 0.18 9.9
5 000316xa 1.32 0.05 33.6 0.10 0.17 6.1
6 000384xa 1.43 0.07 59.8 0.13 0.22 3.6
7 000361ya 1.57 0.06 28.3 0.16 0.17 7.1
8 000316ya 1.66 0.07 33.6 0.14 0.20 6.0
9 000363ya 1.85 0.09 26.1 0.14 0.30 4.9
10 000159xa 2.37 0.11 21.6 0.27 0.40 4.0
11 000134ya 2.14 0.10 22.0 0.38 0.40 4.6
12 000651ya 2.31 0.07 19.8 0.26 0.31 5.0
13 000159xa 2.37 0.11 21.6 0.27 0.40 4.0
14 000766xa 2.53 0.10 23.1 0.34 0.36 4.8
15 000766xa 2.61 0.10 23.1 0.36 0.37 4.8
16 000027ya 2.70 0.10 7.7 0.42 0.35 3.1
17 000770xa 2.75 0.08 56.2 0.55 0.23 4.7
18 000770xa 2.81 0.08 56.2 0.57 0.23 4.7
19 000027ya 2.94 0.11 7.7 0.50 0.38 3.1
20 000067ya 3.00 0.16 18.1 0.38 0.54 2.5
21 000067ya 3.15 0.17 18.1 0.42 0.57 2.5
22 000027ya 3.24 0.12 7.7 0.60 0.42 3.1
23 000766ya 3.29 0.14 23.1 0.44 0.49 4.0
24 000766ya 3.35 0.14 23.1 0.46 0.50 4.0
25 000501xa 3.40 0.25 36.3 0.72 0.95 3.0
26 000501xa 3.46 0.25 36.3 0.74 0.96 3.0
27 000027xa 3.74 0.18 7.8 0.66 0.70 3.1
28 000027xa 4.00 0.19 7.8 0.76 0.75 3.1
29 000593xa 4.30 0.19 28.7 1.18 0.62 4.9
30 000593xa 4.61 0.20 28.7 1.36 0.66 4.9
31 000126ya 4.96 0.22 10.0 1.09 0.78 2.3
32 000297ya 0.32 0.05 62.0 0.05 0.28 45.6
33 000295ya 0.55 0.09 50.0 0.07 0.40 32.4
34 000296xa 0.61 0.05 54.5 0.10 0.25 30.8
35 000049xa 0.61 0.08 42.7 0.12 0.41 19.9
36 000294xa 0.91 0.18 65.0 0.27 0.74 48.9
37 000612ya 0.93 0.18 65.0 0.25 0.92 29.6
38 000293xa 0.99 0.10 65.0 0.62 0.55 48.5
39 000289ya 1.35 0.12 65.0 0.52 0.52 44.1
40 000170ya 1.56 0.15 31.5 0.18 0.56 7.9
41 000600xa 1.59 0.13 57.0 0.29 0.50 14.7
42 000291ya 1.70 0.28 65.0 1.31 1.21 45.7
43 000287ya 1.80 0.32 65.0 0.45 1.23 31.7
44 000592xa 1.99 0.16 49.7 0.47 0.82 9.7
45 001231ya 2.24 0.29 54.0 0.92 1.12 34.5
46 001228xa 2.34 0.21 47.4 0.54 0.74 29.5
47 000290ya 3.00 0.63 61.0 1.49 1.57 38.6
48 001257xa 3.04 0.56 65.0 1.53 1.69 31.7
49 000055ya 3.09 0.33 35.9 1.17 1.13 5.2
50 001226ya 3.54 0.54 27.0 1.31 2.34 11.1
268 A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269
intensity derived from nite faults ground motion simulations. Bull Earthq Eng
2012;10(2):51745.
[39] Puglia R, Vona M, Klin P, Ladina C, Masi A, Priolo E, et al. Analysis of site
response and building damage distribution due to the 31 October 2002
earthquake at San Giuliano di Puglia (Italy). Earthquake Spectra, in press.
[40] Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M. Earthquake damage scenarios of Potenza
town (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1(1):11540.
[41] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based seismic design of
structures. Pavia (Italy): IUSS Press; 2007.
[42] Masi A, Vona M. Estimation of the period of vibration of existing RC building
types based on experimental data and numerical results. In: Increasing seismic
safety by combining engineering technologies and seismological data. Springer
Book, WB/NATO Publishing Unit; 2008. p. 20726
[43] Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM. 6th April 2009 LAquila earthquake, Italy:
reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng
2011;9(1):285305.
A. Masi, M. Vona / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 257269 269