The new Romanian code for seismic evaluation of existing buildings

2010 ◽  
pp. 1647-1655 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Postelnicu ◽  
E Lozinc_ ◽  
R Pascu
Keyword(s):  
Existing Buildings ◽  
Seismic Evaluation

scholarly journals SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ACCORDING TO DOCUMENT FEMA 310

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Latinović
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Seismic Resistance ◽  
Masonry Buildings ◽  
Masonry Structures ◽  
Existing Buildings ◽  
Seismic Evaluation ◽  
Building Type ◽  
Second Tier

In this paper, the principle of application of the FEMA310 document for seismic evaluation of existing buildings is briefly illustrated, for any building type, and examples of evaluation are given for the first and second tier of evaluation process, for two types of masonry structures. The application of this document at tier one and tier two of the evaluation process is a conservative, simplified way of determining seismic resistance, based on many experiential data and including the most important parameters of buildings that can affect seismic resistance. Instructions given by FEMA310 are easy to apply, but are adapted to US standards. Two examples for evaluation of masonry buildings on first and second tier of evaluation are given, for masonry buildings with rigid and flexible diaphragmas.

Loading Protocols for ASCE 41 Backbone Curves

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 2513-2532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce F. Maison ◽  
Matthew S. Speicher
Keyword(s):  
Hysteresis Loops ◽  
Earthquake Response ◽  
Existing Buildings ◽  
Cyclic Tests ◽  
Seismic Evaluation ◽  
Backbone Curve ◽  
Seismic Demands ◽  
Loading Pattern ◽  
Industry Standard ◽  
Reversed Cyclic

ASCE 41 is the industry standard for seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. It allows for alternative component modeling and acceptance criteria based on a backbone curve constructed from envelopes of component hysteresis loops derived via experimental cyclic tests. ASCE 41-13 requires use of loading protocols having fully reversed cyclic loadings with increasing displacement levels. However, recent research summarized herein indicates the need for inclusion of different protocols that pay specific attention to behavior incipient to collapse. This view is supported by example building computer earthquake response simulations described herein. A generalized loading pattern derived from the simulations found relatively few drift excursions having one-direction bias, suggesting one-sided cyclic and/or monotonic tests may be better for describing building inelastic seismic demands.

Discussion of “A Framework to Evaluate the Benefit of Seismic Upgrading”

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 1511-1514
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Galanis ◽  
Marco Broccardo ◽  
Lukas Bodenmann ◽  
Božidar Stojadinović
Keyword(s):  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Existing Buildings ◽  
Seismic Evaluation ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Existing Structures ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The One ◽  
Performance Based Earthquake Engineering

Discussers (Michel et al.) address the paper “A Framework to Evaluate the Benefit of Seismic Upgrading” written by the coauthors of this response. Discussers present the compliance factor approach to evaluate existing structures and determine the need for a seismic upgrade implemented in the Swiss code SIA 269/8 and compare this approach to the one presented in the discussed paper. The approach proposed in the discussed paper combines elements of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) framework and the standard actuarial frequency-severity approach. Discussers criticize this approach as not being risk based and, consequently, consider it inappropriate for seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Coauthors welcome the comparison of different approaches for evaluation of existing buildings but disagree with the discussers’ characterization of the PEER PBEE framework and, by extension, the approach of the discussed paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document