EUROSTEEL 2008, 3-5 September 2008, Graz, Austria

SEISMIC DESIGN OF TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL STEEL AND

RC PRECAST STRUCTURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Davide Bellotti a, Davide Bolognini a, Filippo Dacarro a, Roberto Nascimbene a
a
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (Eucentre), Pavia, Italy

INTRODUCTION
The majority of the traditional Italian industrial buildings (such as one-storey warehouses or multi-
storey buildings) consists of reinforced concrete (RC) precast structures or steel structures, which
strategical and economical importance is not negligible. Due to this reason, the serviceability limit
state and any condition which negatively affect social and economical activities, rather than
ultimate limit state, require particular care in the design process. In addition, even if the seismicity
level is constant, the risk may increase because of the progressive rising of the urbanization level,
energy consumption and request of road networks and infrastructures.
The work presented here is a sub-topics of a wider research regarding the evaluation of seismic
retrofit solutions of traditional Italian RC precast structures It is divided in the following main steps:
• Design, in accordance with the provisions of Eurocode 8 (EC8) and the Italian regulations
[OPCM 3431, 2005], of twenty-two steel structures conceived as an alternative of traditional
Italian RC precast industrial buildings, already designed and described in Calvi et al. [2007].
• Discussion of the main design issues, in particular regarding some details of the effects of the
behaviour of the steel brace systems.
• Comparison of the results carried out from the design of the two structural typologies and
from first preliminary predictions of the seismic response (pushover and time history non-
linear analysis performed with a fibre-based element code [Mazzoni et al., 2006] and a
concentrated plasticity element code [Mondkar & Powell, 1975]).
• Evaluation of possible innovative solutions, which utilize steel brace systems, for the seismic
retrofit of the RC precast structures.

1 DEFINITION OF THE CASE STUDIES

In this paper six structural types concerning industrial steel structures with bracing systems are
considered (Table 1). Twenty-two case-studies are designed with the same design conditions
(seismic zone, soil type, ductility class, area, number of stories) of RC precast structures designed
and described in Calvi et al. [2007].

Table 1. Main characteristics of the case-studies. Permanent and live loads: 0.20 and 1.30 kN/m2
(for one-storey structures); 3.50 and 4.50, 2.00 and 3.00, 1.00 and 1.30 kN/m2, (respectively for the
first, second and third floor of the multi-storey structures). The self-weight of the structural
elements, slabs, braces and panels vary depending on the structural type.
Number Span Height Soil PGA Ductility
Id. Bracing system
of stories lengths [m] [m] type [g] Classes
1 10 x 24 7.50
Concentric X braces
2 5 x 24 7.50
0.15 -
3 1 10 x 24 7.50 Eccentric braces Medium - High -
0.35
4 10 x 24 7.50 Concentric V braces dense sand Low
5 10 x 24 7.50 Concentric inverted V braces
6 3 5.5 x 10.8 10.50 Concentric braces 0.25
Such traditional Italian RC precast structural typologies were selected in order to represent the large
majority of the present Italian production. Their typical characteristics (span length range, gravity
load range, type of connections) were carried out from a preliminary investigation of the available
literature, then the design for different seismicity zones and type of soils, in accordance with EC8
and the Italian regulation, was performed and the main design issues and the seismic response
examined and discussed.

1.2
Steel
1.0 Structure
RC precast
0.8 structures

PSA [g]
0.6 Elastic spectrum
for high seismicity
0.4 and medium-dense

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period [sec]

Fig. 2. Comparison of the fundamental periods of

Fig. 1. Structural types 2, 3 and 6
the examined precast RC and steel structures

2 DESIGN APPROACH
The main design criteria of the force-based method of EC8 and of the Italian code for steel braced
frames is that the seismic loads are resisted only by the braces, which yield in tension and in
compression, whereas the beams and the columns are protected from yielding under the design
earthquake in order to maintain the integrity of the gravity load bearing system.
Both the EC8 and the Italian code consider two design approaches: simplified equivalent linear
analysis with only the contribution of the braces in tension in the ultimate limit state and non-linear
(pushover or time-history) analysis with models characterized by both the braces in tension and in
compression, provided that the pre-buckling and post-buckling situations are taken into account.
Within the simplified method, a model with both the braces in tension and in compression permits
to carry out the dynamic characteristics of the structure, provided that the buckling is avoided. A
model with only the braces in tension subjected to the whole seismic load is then used to protect the
beams and the columns in high ductility class from yielding under the design earthquake. In order to
design the steel braces, the seismic demand is carried out from the most conservative of the two
models; the following limitations of the non-dimensional slenderness l apply, in order to prevent
instability (upper limit) and, in case of concentric X braces, to have an appropriate response both in
the pre-buckling stage and in the post-buckling stage (lower limit):
1.3 < l £ 2 for X braces ; l £ 2 otherwise (1)
The assumptions regarding the simplified method are justified by the fact that the behaviour of the
concentric braces, designed so that the beams and the columns remain in the elastic field until all
the braces in tension are yielded, can be summarized in the following three steps [Mazzolani et al.,
2006]. Initially all the steel braces are active and their contribution to the global elastic response in
terms of stiffness and strength depends on the slenderness of the braces in compression. When the
buckle occurs, the global behaviour is considered due only to the braces in tension and the global
stiffness and strength are reduced. The third step is characterized by the yielding of the braces in
tension and the global response is dependent on the ductility of such elements.
Notwithstanding, it has to be highlighted that the pre-buckling stage may govern the design of the
gravity load system, depending on the ratio between the buckling and the tensile yielding loads of
the braces c = N buckling N y [De Luca et al., 2006]; if c > 0.5 , the model with both the braces in
tension and in compression active is the most conservative (in this work 0.15 < c < 0.29 ).
In order to protect the columns from yielding, the axial load demand is given by the combination of
the gravity loads and of the seismic loads; the latter, in concentric braces, is amplified by a factor
a as a function of the overstrength of the material g ov , the axial yielding tensile strength N pl ,Rd and
the axial design load N Sd [O.P:C.M. 3274 s.m.i., 2003]:

a = (g ov s i N pl ,Rd ,i ) N Sd ,i £ q (2)
For eccentrical braces two different formulations, based on shear actions or bending moments, are
considered for short links and long links, respectively.
Within a non-linear analysis, the seismic load is shared by both the braces in tension and in
compression. The post-buckling strength degradation is not defined in EC8 or in the Italian seismic
code, differently from other international seismic regulations. This parameter is currently studied by
Wijesundara et al. [2008] for diagonals elements with hollow rectangular cross-sections.

3 MAIN RESULTS

3.1 Design
Within the simplified method, two specific conditions characterized the design. In the case of multi-
storey structures, the diagonal braces were subjected to high axial load demand carried out from the
envelope of the effects of the first and the second model and large sections were used (up to 2 UPN
240x85x13mm) to avoid the buckling in compression both in high and low ductility classes. This
situation is unfavourable for the lower limitation of the slenderness (Eq. 1), especially if the steel
diagonals are connected at the mid-span (in accordance with Wakabayashi & Matsui, [1974]). The
slenderness of the braces of the multi-storey structures was very close to the lower limit ( l » 1.4 ).
In the case of one-storey structures, the effects of the low mass and of the high behaviour factor
prevailed against the relatively high stiffness due to the presence of the braces, therefore the axial
load demand was lower compared to the multi-storey structures. The design resulted in slender
braces, whose cross sections, designed according to the model with the only braces in tension
active, had to be increased to avoid the buckle in compression. Although the c factor increased of
45%, its maximum value was 0.29. The cases characterized by excessive slenderness of the X
braces (span length = 10 m) were resolved by connecting the braces together at their mid-span; in
all the other cases (span length = 5 m), the diagonal elements had slenderness values already
included between the limits of Eq. 1 and no additional verifications were necessary. Typical cross
sections and slenderness values were 2 L80x80x10mm to 2 L120x120x10mm and 1.65 < l < 1.9 ,
respectively. Moreover, for concentric X braces, the upper limit of the slenderness (Eq. 1) combined
with the amplification factor a (Eq. 2), resulted in an apparently conservative design of the
columns, especially for the three-storey structures (IPE 220 up to IPE 550). It has to be highlighted
that the upper limitation of the a factor (equal to the behaviour factor q) prevents the design from
more unfavourable conditions. In case of one-storey structures the range of column cross sections
was IPE 330 – IPE 450.
In the case of eccentrically braced frames, the collapse depended on the characteristics of the
sections and on the geometry. Since long links have been considered, a flexural collapse was
expected and no additional web reinforcement was necessary, although the combined verification of
bending and torsion was developed.
Within a non-linear analysis approach, the braces, which yield in tension and in compression, are
subjected to less restrictive slenderness limitations; the fundamental period of vibration of the case-
studies increases of 34% up to 100% in comparison with the simplified approach.
The main issues regarding the design of the connections are similar to those of the columns, in
particular restrictive conditions are due to the protection of the connections from yielding under the
design earthquake. In addition, the gusset plates had to be dimensioned to allow the yielding of the
braces without suffer damages, so in some cases a relevant thickness (>15mm) has been used.

3.2 Numerical predictions

Information about the energy dissipation mechanism, displacement profile and shear distribution
were carried out from time-history non-linear analysis with accelerograms, whose spectral shapes
match the characteristics of the design spectra for a given seismicity zone and soil type; the
pushover analysis provided information on the strength and displacement capacity. Appropriate
details of the numerical model had to be taken into account, in order to account for the pre-buckling
and the post-buckling behaviour with nonlinear beam-column elements and co-rotational geometric
transformation, since the plane of instability (vertical or horizontal) of the braces depends on the
orientation of the cross-section and on the arrangement of the braces (single or double profile). Only
the fibre-based element model was able to simulate the post-buckling strength degradation of the
steel braces.
Although more analysis are necessary in order to effectively capture the global ductility capacity of
the steel structures, the results obtained pointed out that the simplified method, as expected, was
more conservative of the non-linear analysis, particularly in low ductility class, where the predicted
strength capacity to design demand ratio was greater than 4. Moreover, in spite of the high global
displacement ductility (> 7.5) and the good energy dissipation capacity, the appropriate stiffness of
the braced frames effectively reduced the second order effects (sensitivity factor in accordance with
EC8 q < 0.04) and the inter-storey drift, preventing the non-structural elements from damage at the
serviceability limit state.
The response of the structures is heavily affected by: the cyclic post-buckling behaviour of the
braces, characterized by residual deformations after the unloading branch; the out-of-plane
displacement demand of the braces, which may strongly affected the limitation of the damage at the
serviceability limit state; the axial load level on the members, which must be predicted with
particular accuracy, in order to avoid an excessive overstrength demand in the design of the gravity
load bearing system and of the connections. In particular, design of slender braces according to the
demand carried out directly from the model with only the diagonal elements in tension active may
reduce such overstrength demand, but this results in a pre-buckling behaviour not compatible with
the limitation of the displacement at the serviceability limit state.

4 COMPARISON BETWEEN STEEL AND RC PRECAST TYPOLOGIES

A comparison between the two structural typologies pointed out that the RC precast structures were
more flexible (1.00 s < T < 1.70 s) than the steel ones (0.20 s < T < 0.60 s). Although the lower
periods resulted in higher spectral accelerations (Fig. 2), the steel structures were subjected to a
lower seismic demand, due to the high behaviour factors (q up to 5.5). Moreover, due to the
presence of the braces, they were not affected by the second order effects or the displacement
limitations of the serviceability limit state (Fig. 3a). Nonetheless, the simplified design method and
the protection of the gravity load bearing system from yielding limited, in some measure, the
optimization of the materials (beams, columns, and connections) as mentioned above. In any case,
the design of the connections was not so restrictive as the case of the RC precast structures, but the
strength degradation effect due to the cyclic loads must be considered.
The connections between the structural members are one of the weak points of the seismic response
of the traditional RC precast structures, since they strongly affect the mechanism of energy
dissipation. In addition, in the large majority of the cases, the second order effects (0.1<q < 02) and
the serviceability limit state (maximum permitted drift equal to 1%) govern the design instead of the
ultimate limit state (Fig. 3b), which may have some importance only in few cases, particularly in
medium-low ductility conditions. This is due to the relatively high flexibility of structures
characterized by monolithic columns fixed at the base and beams pinned at each floor. It has to be
noticed, though, that the serviceability limit state regards the limitation of damage and cracking
respectively of non-structural and structural members; it is related to the attainment of an interstorey
drift equal to 1%, although more detailed considerations are needed about this value, since the
facade precast panels can not realistically achieve such level of deformation without suffer damage.
Furthermore, additional information is needed to study the interaction between the precast panels
and the structure during the first stages of the seismic event.

160%

Columns: increase of the cross section depth

60%
Damage Limit State
Columns: increase in cross-section area

140% Damage Limit State

Second order effects 50%
Second order effects
120% Ultimate Limit State
Ultimate Limit State
100% Capacity design 40%

80% 30%
60%
20%
40%
20% 10%

0% 0%
2_3B 2_3A 3_3B 3_3A 1_1B 1_1A 2_1B 2_1A 3_1B 3_1A 6_2B 6_2A 1LD 1HD 2LD 2HD 3LD 3HD 4LD 4HD 5LD 5HD 6LD 6HD 7LD 7HD 8LD 8HD 9LD 9HD

Low seismicity Medium-high seismicity Low seismicity Medium-high seismicity

Multi-storey Multi-storey
One-storey structures structures
One-storey structures
structures

Fig. 3. Influence of the different verifications of steel (left) and RC precast (right) structures

Due to the small selfweight and the less seismic loads, the design of the column-foundation
connections and of the foundations was less restrictive, in terms of computational efforts and
amount of material, for the steel structures (lateral force to gravity load ratio is equal to 25% and
30% for one-storey and multi-storey steel structures and about 10% for RC precast structures). In
any case, the effects of the eccentricity due to the lateral forces prevailed on the effects due to the
gravity loads.
A first rough estimation of the costs, based on documents which date back to 2005 and apply in
northern Italy, highlighted that the advantages for the steel structures lie in the sink and
embankment of the foundations, road transport and assemblage of the elements, particularly in case
of one-storey structures. Moreover, the costs of the steel and RC multi-storey structures (case 6)
examined in this work are very similar.

5 APPLICATIONS TO RC STRUCTURES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The seismic retrofit of the traditional RC precast multi-storey structures may concern the beam-
column connections, for which different levels of intervention can be defined, or the use of
perimeter rigid frames, which is not yet completely considered in the current Italian production.

Cover Concrete
900 Damage spalling Crushing 1.0
of the
800 connections
First 0.8
700 Yielding
PGA [g]
Base Shear [kN]

600
0.6

500 0.4
400
0.2 Steel
300
RC
200 Uniform 0.0
0.5 SLU1 1.5 SLU2 2.5 SLU3 3.5 SLU4 4.5
Modal
100 Cracking
Prop. to Mass & Height
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Fig. 5. Peak ground acceleration
Displacement of Top Floor [mm] corresponding to the limit states of the multi-
Fig. 4. Multi-storey RC precast frame (case 6): storey steel and RC precast frames (case 6)
numerical prediction of the response
The traditional RC precast structures are characterized by: a relatively high flexibility, which is
beneficial to the verifications of the ultimate limit state, but it is unfavourable for the limitation of
the displacements of the damage limit state; a limited global ductility µ D < 3.5 (Fig. 4), which can
be achieved only with very high drift values (e.g. 6%).
Four limit states have been defined as a function of different drift values (0.5%, 1%, 2% and 4%)
and the corresponding peak ground accelerations for the given soil type have been calculated, in
order to highlight the different seismic behaviour of the steel braced structures and the traditional
RC precast ones. Although the global ductility of the steel structures has to be evaluated with more
accuracy, it is possible to notice that high accelerations are necessary to attain small drift values
(Fig. 5). The use of perimeter rigid frames in the structural configuration of traditional RC precast
structures, particularly the use of steel braces to reduce the displacements at the damage limit state,
can be very effective. Preliminary numerical simulations pointed out that concentric X braces
induce potentially high tensile load variations on the columns and may have excessive lateral
displacement demand, whereas eccentrical inverted V braces may give problems for the verification
of the beams and of the beam-column connections. Nevertheless, the development of the present
work is the study of modified X braces with modified connections to the concrete columns, since
they seems to be very effective.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Part of the work described in this paper has been carried out under the financial auspices of the
Department of the Italian Civil Protection (Dipartimento della Protezione Civile Italiana), the
support of which is therefore gratefully acknowledge. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the contribution of Mr. Rosario De Luca on the non-linear analysis.

REFERENCES
[1] Calvi G.M., Filippetto M., Bolognini D., Nascimbene R., Strutture prefabbricate in c.a. in
zona sismica: stato della pratica costruttiva Italiana e principali problematiche di progettazione,
L’Ingegneria Sismica, Marzo-Aprile 2007b
[2] De Luca A., Grande E., Mele E., Nuove tendenze di progettazione sismica di edifici a
controventi concentrici, Costruzioni metalliche n°3, 2006
[3] Englekirk R.E., Steel Structures – Controlling behaviour through design, Wiley, 1994
[4] Martinez-Rueda, J.E., On the Evolution of Energy Dissipation Devices for Seismic Design,
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 2, pages 309–346, May 2002;
[5] Mazzolani F.M., Landolfo R., Della Corte G., Faggiano B., Edifici con Struttura di Acciaio
in Zona Sismica, IUSS Press, 2006
[6] Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., Fenves, G.L., Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation user command-language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Version 1.7.3, September 2006
[7] Mele E., Di Sarno L., De Luca A., Seismic Behaviour of Perimeter and Spatial Steel
Frames, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2004, pp. 457-496
[8] Mondkar D.P., Powell G.H., ANSR-I: General Purpose Program For Analysis of Nonlinear
Structural Response, Earthquake Engeneering Research Center, University of California,
December 1975
[9] Salmon C.G., Johnson J.E., Steel Structures – Design and Behaviour (Emphasizing Load
and Resistance Factor Design), Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996
[10] Tremblay R., Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members, Journal of Construction
Steel Research, pp. 665-701, 2002
[11] Wakabayashi M., Matsui C., Inelastic behaviour of full scale steel frames with and without
bracing, Bull. Disaster Prevention Res. Inst. , Kyoto University, 24, part 1, n. 216, 1-23, 1974
[12] Wijesundara K.K., Calvi G.M., Bolognini D., Nascimbene R., Review of Experimental Data
on Design Parameters of Concentric Braced Frames, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008,
in preparation