Version 1
: Received: 12 August 2024 / Approved: 13 August 2024 / Online: 14 August 2024 (07:10:33 CEST)
How to cite:
Colajanni, P.; Ahmed, M.; D’Anna, J. Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems. Preprints2024, 2024080959. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.0959.v1
Colajanni, P.; Ahmed, M.; D’Anna, J. Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems. Preprints 2024, 2024080959. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.0959.v1
Colajanni, P.; Ahmed, M.; D’Anna, J. Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems. Preprints2024, 2024080959. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.0959.v1
APA Style
Colajanni, P., Ahmed, M., & D’Anna, J. (2024). Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.0959.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Colajanni, P., Muhammad Ahmed and Jennifer D’Anna. 2024 "Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.0959.v1
Abstract
The use of braces equipped with dissipative devices for the seismic strengthening of seismically prone reinforced concrete frames is among the most widespread methods, as it allows for high reductions in seismic vulnerability with inexpensive, quickly executed interventions, which can often be carried out mainly by the exterior, resulting in interruptions of use limited both in time and to only small portions of the building. The design methods of dissipative devices are based on the extensive use of pushover analyses capable of highlighting the structural deficiencies of the building and comparing the performances achievable by developing designs according to different methods and sizing criteria. In the present work, with reference to a case study represented by a four-story spatial frame having characteristics representative of design and construction common practice of the 1970s in Southern European countries, the performance of three different design methods is compared. The examined procedures differ for: methods for estimating the peak displacement response of the nonlinear systems, namely the well-known Equal Displacement Rule and the Equivalent (secant) stiffness and Damping rule; and criteria for distributing stiffness and strength of the bracing along the height, namely the distribution of stiffness and strength proportionally to those of the frame, and methods that vary the stiffness and strength along the height in order to minimize the eventual irregularity in elevation of the bare frame. The effectiveness of the procedures is checked by static pushover analysis and nonlinear response history analysis, performed by unidirectional and bidirectional input. Pros and cons of each procedure are summarized, all of them able to provide bracing designs that meet the performance requirements set during the design phase.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
