Evaluation of the Egyptian code for Seismic design of regular frames using the performance-based design methods | ||||
| International Journal of Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering | ||||
| Volume 07, Issue 02, May 2023, Page 1-9 PDF (617.9 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asge.2024.218470.1058 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Amira Alaa  1; Mohie El-Din Shokry2; Ahmed Tarabia1
| ||||
| 1Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||||
| 2Alexandria Univeristy | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| In the present decades, more advanced seismic nonlinear analysis has become possible. ATC-40, FEMA-356, Eurocode, the N2 method, and FEMA-440 are popular performance-based seismic design (PBSD) procedures. These procedures determine the performance level of the structure and the target displacement using the nonlinear static behavior of the structure and the damped response earthquake spectrum. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the performance of regular frames designed by the Egyptian code equivalent static load method using several performance design methods. The studied regular RC frames are six, ten, and fourteen-story limited ductile concrete frames. The SeismoStruct nonlinear finite element program was used to perform the pushover nonlinear static analysis. The maximum inelastic displacement and the performance level of the reinforced concrete buildings were determined for each performance method. In general, it was concluded that the equivalent static method is conservative, especially for tall frames, because it is based on simple linear assumptions. The results of this paper showed that the performance level of regular concrete frames designed by the ECP-201 seismic code method subjected to 0.15 g and 0.3 g, was a life safety level. Also, the capacity spectrum method (ATC-40) gave the lowest target displacement in most cases, and the displacement coefficient method (FEMA-440) gave the highest value. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Seismic; Pushover; Performance point; Performance seismic procedure | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 193 PDF Download: 657 |
||||
