Abstract
This study presents the seismic performance evaluation of the reinforced concrete (RC) frame designed as per Ethiopian (based on EN1998-1) and Chinese seismic codes to realize best practices within them. In the study, three-model RC frames with 4-, 8-, and 12-story are designed with the respective codes. Then, their seismic performances are evaluated using the nonlinear static (pushover) procedures of FEMA 356 and ATC 40 provisions. To validate the analysis result, dynamic nonlinear time history analysis is also made. The comparison parameters include elastic stiffness, peak strength, target displacement, and plastic hinge formation patterns in the structures. The results display many similarities in the global and local performances of the structures. Despite these, some noteworthy discrepancies are also noted. Besides, the performance point analysis revealed a significant difference in target displacement that reflects the two codes’ demand spectrum essential disagreements, particularly for the period of vibration greater than 2.0’s. In conclusion, the study highlighted the beneficial aspects of both codes, which will be useful for the future studies.
Highlights
Regardless of their differences, modern seismic building design codes tend to agree on issues of design methodology and the state-of-the-art in using different design control parameters such as a design base shear, capacity and demand ductility, and drift limits to ensure seismic performance [1]
It implies that structures and facilities can be designed and constructed in such a manner that their performance under expected seismic load can be estimated with an acceptable degree of accuracy [4], for commonly known three performance levels: serviceability, life safety, and collapse prevention [5]
In our recent work, soil structure interaction, dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) frame subjected to the same ground motion matched to the design response spectrum of ES8-15 and GB11-10, higher base shear, and interstory drift observed in GB11-10 [27]
Summary
Regardless of their differences, modern seismic building design codes tend to agree on issues of design methodology and the state-of-the-art in using different design control parameters such as a design base shear, capacity and demand ductility, and drift limits to ensure seismic performance [1]. In our recent work, soil structure interaction, dynamic analysis of RC frame subjected to the same ground motion matched to the design response spectrum of ES8-15 and GB11-10, higher base shear, and interstory drift observed in GB11-10 [27]. To this end, the comparison between the Chinese and Ethiopia code is very relevant. The study presents the design and seismic performance assessment of selected model frames according to Ethiopian and Chinese seismic codes in the subsequent sections based on building structures critical seismic performance evaluation parameters such as plastic hinges formation, capacity curve, interstory drift, and target displacement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
