THE 7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

"CIVIL ENGINEERING - SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"

GNP 2020 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 10-14 March 2020

Vasilije Bojović1, Nikola Bjeletić2 Student paper

THE EFFECT OF GROUND CATEGORY ON RC FRAME STRUCTURE

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

Abstract
Six-storey RC frame structure of square base, which was founded on ground with different
characteristics, and which was located on the Montenegrin coast, in the IX seismic zone, with
the reference peak ground acceleration agR = 0.32g, was considered in this paper.
For adopted geometric and material characteristics of structural elements, modelling and
calculation of seismic forces was made according to Eurocode 8, and an overview of the still
valid code PIOVSP'81 was also given. In accordance with Eurocode 8, for calculation of
seismic forces, the lateral force method of analysis and modal response spectrum analysis were
used. According to code PIOVSP’81, the equivalent static load method was used. For
calculation and analysis of effects, according to Eurocode 8, a considered structure was
founded on three ground types: B, C and D. Calculation according to PIOVSP’81, was made
for structure founded on the second and the third ground category.
For adopted structural system, in accordance with the aforementioned codes, a comparison and
analysis of:
- periods of vibrations,
- total seismic forces,
- storey seismic forces,
- total displacements,
- interstorey drifts,
were presented in this paper.
In the end of this paper, conclusion was made as a result of calculations and seismic analysis,
for considered frame structure. Code Eurocode 8, recognizes better the effect of ground type on
which the object is located. According to code PIOVSP’81, for structures with period of
vibration less than 0.5s, there is no effect of ground category. Also, considering cracked
sections, according to Eurocode 8, more flexible structures were obtained, than in accordance
with code PIOVSP’81.
Key words
ground category, RC frame structure, Eurocode 8, seismic design, the lateral force method of
analysis, modal response spectrum analysis, stiffness, cracked section

1
Spec. Sci in civ. eng, Teaching assistant, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Montenegro, vasilije.b@ucg.ac.me
2
Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Montenegro, bjeletic.nikola10@gmail.com

371
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1. INTRODUCTION

Six-storey frame structure, with total height of 19m, was considered. Storey height of the
ground floor is 4m, while height of other storeys is 3m each. The structure is square shaped base,
with dimensions of 16.5x16.5m. In both directions a span of structural elements is 3x5.5m.
It is a reinforced structure, the uniaxial strength of concrete is C30/37 according to
Eurocode 2 [4], and which corresponds class strength of concrete MB35 according to code
PBAB’87 [5]. Reinforcement is class B500/600.
Square cross section of the columns is adopted. Dimensions of interior columns are
60x60cm, while dimensions of exterior columns are 50x50cm. Rectangular cross section is adopted
for the beams, with dimensions of 40x60cm. Floor slab is RC, with 16cm in thickness.
3D design model of the analysed structure is given in the Figure 1, and it was designed
using software Tower, which is based on the finite element method.

Figure 1. 3D model of the structure

2. LOAD ANALYSIS

Based on adopted geometry and material characteristics of the structural elements, used
software automatically calculated self-weight.
Additional dead load is uniformly distributed surface unit load, on the floor slabs as well as
on the roof. Adopted value of this load is Δg = 2 kN/m2.
Live load is uniformly distributed surface unit load, on the floor slabs, with intensity of p =
2 kN/m2.
Considering the location of the structure, the snow load is uniformly distributed surface unit
load, with intensity of s = 0.75 kN/m2.

372
 GNP 2 0 2 0

2.1. PERIODS OF VIBRATIONS

According to Eurocode 8 [2], the elastic flexural and shear stiffness properties of structural
elements are taken to be equal to one half of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked elements.
In Eurocode 8 (EC8) [2] the weight of the structure is given by the expression:
W   Gkj   ei Qkj
(1)

Total weight is calculated as a sum of the dead load, 15% of live load and 30% of snow load.
The total weight and calculated periods of vibrations for the first 2 modes are given in the
Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of the structure according to EC8
Total weight (KN) Period of vibration, the 1. mode (s) Period of vibration, the 2. mode (s)
17469.4 0.814 0.814
It is noted that the European code in seismic design, uses smaller percent of live load and
snow load, when compared to code PIOVSP’81 [3]. For seismic design, code POVSP’81 uses total
dead load, 50% of live load and total snow load. PIOVSP’81 [3] does not take into account the
effect of cracking by reducing stiffness. According to this code, greater total weight of the structure
and smaller periods of vibrations are obtained, than in accordance with Eurocode 8 [2], (Table 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of the structure according to PIOVSP’81
Total weight (KN) Period of vibration, the 1. mode (s) Period of vibration, the 2. mode (s)
18586.8 0.588 0.588

2.2. SEISMIC DESIGN

The analysed building was designed as a high-ductility class structure (DCH), resulting in a
greater reduction of seismic forces (higher behaviour factor), higher displacement ductility, and
lower bearing capacity.
The structure was located in the IX seismic zone, with the reference peak ground
acceleration agR=0.32g. Analysed building belongs to a group of frame structures, and it was
founded on a different ground types - ground type B, C and D. When it comes to ground type B, it
is very dense sand, gravel or very stiff clay. On the other hand ground type C is characterized by
medium-dense sand, gravel or stiff clay, while ground type D represents loose-to-medium
cohesionless soil. Importance factor of the structure amounts γ1=1.0, and adopted behaviour factor
is q=5.85.

2.2.1. Calculation of seismic forces using the lateral force method of analysis
Because of its own simplicity, the lateral force method of analysis (LFM) is the most
commonly used method in calculating seismic forces. Condition for using this method is defined in
a way that it is necessary for the structure to vibrate predominantly in the first mode.
The requirement is deemed to be satisfied in buildings which fulfil both of the two
following conditions:

373
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

a) they have fundamental periods of vibration T1 in the two main directions which are
smaller than the following values:

 4T
T1   c (2)
 2.0 s
b) they meet the criteria for regularity in elevation.
Considered structure satisfied both conditions.
The seismic base shear force Fb for each horizontal direction in which the building is
analysed, shall be determined using the following expression:
Fb  Sd (T1 )m (3)

Distribution of the horizontal seismic forces may be calculated using methods of structural
dynmnics or may be approximated by horizontal displacelments increasing linearly along the
height of the building.
For the anylased building, distribution of the horizontal seismic forces was calculated using
methods of structural dynmnics.
si mi
Fi  Fb (4)
 s jmj

2.2.2. Calculation of seismic forces using the modal response spectrum analysis
Modal response spectrum analysis (MMA) could be used for all types of structures. It shall
be used for buildings which do not satisfy the necessary conditions for using the LFM. It is a
reference method for calculating seismic forces according to Eurocode 8 [2].
When using this method, the response of all modes of vibration contributing significantly to
the global response shall be taken into account. The number of necessary modes is determined by
fulfilling one of the following conditions:
- the sum of the effective modal masses for the modes taken into account amounts to at least
90% of the total mass of the structure;
- all modes with effective modal masses greater than 5% of the total mass are taken into
account. For each mode of vibrations it is necessary to calculate seismic force Fbi.
Fbi  mef ,i Sd T( i ), i  1,2,...,n (5)

If all relevant modal responses are regarded as independent from each other, the maximum value of
a seismic action effect may be taken as: SRSS – Square-Root-of-Sum-of-Squares method.

EE  2
 EEi
(6)

374
 GNP 2 0 2 0

2.2.3. Calculation of seismic forces according to code PIOVSP’81

Seismic forces were calculated using the equivalent statitic load method (ESL method). As
defined in the code, the total base shear is equal:
S  KG (7)

Considered building was located on the Montenegrin coast, in the IX seismic zone, and belongs to
the second category of structure. The building was founded on different ground categories – the
second and the third ground category. The second ground category represents very compacted and
hard soil, while the third ground category is characterized by soft-to firm cohesive soil.
Seismic forces for the structure founded on the 2. ground category were equal to seismic
forces for the building located on the 3. ground category. It is noted that the effect of ground
category does not exist, if the fundamental period of vibration is lower than 0.5s (lower than 0.7s if
considered structure is founded on the 2. and the 3. ground category).
In accordance with the PIOVSP’81 [3], distribution of seismic forces was calculated using
the following expression:
Gi H i
Si  S n
(8)
 Gi H i
1

Code PIOVSP’81 [3] prescribes that for structures with more than 5 storeys, 85% of total base
shear is distributed according to previous expression, and 15% of the total base shear is added as a
concentrated force on the top of the structure.
As well as total shear forces, a distribution of shear forces across the structure, for the
building founded on the 2. and the 3. ground category, is equal.

3. COMPARISON OF RESULTS

3.1. COMPARISON OF FUNDAMENTAL PERODS OF VIBRATIONS

In accordance with Eurocode 8 [2], the calculated fundamental period of vibration for the
structure founded on all three ground types, amounts T1=0.814s.

Figure 2. Comparison of fundamental periods of vibrations according to EC8 and PIOVSP’81

On Figure 2, a comparison of fundamental periods of vibrations according to codes

Eurocode 8 [2] and PIOVSP’81 [3], is shown.

375
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

By reducing stiffness in accordance with Eurocode 8 [2], the effect of cracking, during the
earthquake was taken into account. The stiffness of the structure was reduced, and the fundamental
period of vibration was increased. According to Eurocode 8 [2], the fundamental period of
vibrations is higher than according to code PIOVSP’81 [3] for 38.4%.

3.2. COMPARISON OF SEISMIC FORCES

By comparing the total seismic forces, calculated using the LFM and the MMA,
approximately the same values were obtained (Figure 3.). It means that the criteria for the
regularity of the structure at the base and in elevation are fulfilled, as well as the structure
dominantly vibrate in the first mode (the effect of higher modes is insignificant), so the LFM
produces a satisfactory fluid results.

Figure 3.Comparision of total seismic forces for the structure on the ground type B, C and D

As the total values of seismic forces are approximately equal, their distribution across the
structure is approximately equal, so only the LFM was used in further comparison of the results.
Further diagrams show a comparison of the total and storey seismic forces, depending on
ground category. A comparison of the seismic forces obtained according to code PIOVSP’81 [3],
in regard to seismic forces calculated in accordance with Eurocode 8 [2], is also given. Values of
the seismic forces, according to code PIOVSP’81 [3] were multiplied with safety coefficient of 1.3,
in order to be able to compare with the seismic forces obtained according to Eurocode 8 [2], by
which the coefficient for seismic actions is 1.0.

Figure 4.Comparision of total seismic forces for the structure on the ground type B, C and D

Depending on ground category, seismic forces can vary considerably. In analysed case,
seismic forces for the structure founded on the ground type D were higher than seismic forces for
the building which was on the ground type B for 79.8%, and 56.5% higher than seismic forces for
the structure founded on the ground type C. Using the ESL method, greater seismic forces were

376
 GNP 2 0 2 0

obtained than according to Eurocode 8 [2], when the structure was founded on the ground type B
and C, and lower seismic forces when the considered building was located on the ground type D.

Figure 5.Comparision of storey seismic forces for the structure on the ground type B, C and D
(LFM and ESL method)

On the last floor, the seismic force calculated using the ESL method was significantly
greater than the seismic force calculated according to LFM, because 15% of seismic force is added
on the top floor for the structures with more than 5 storeys.

3.3. COMPARISON OF HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENTS

Figure 6 shows the comparison of total displacements, and Figure 7 presents the comparison
of interstorey drifts for the structure founded on the ground type B, C and D.

Figure 6. Comparison of total displacements for the structure founded on the ground type B,C and D

377
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

Figure 7. Comparison of interstorey drifts for the structure founded on the ground type B, C and D

Displacement of the top of the structure founded on the ground type D was 80% higher than
in case when that building was on the ground type B. Also, the structure founded on the ground
type D was displaced 56.5% more than when that building was located on the ground type C.

4. CONCLUSION

By analysing the structure which was founded on the grounds with different characteristics,
it was found that seismic performance of the structure founded on the ground type B and C, was
similar (15% higher effects when the building was located on the ground type C). However, when
the structure was founded on the ground type D, seismic forces were 80% higher than when the
building was on the ground type B.
It is shown that Eurocode 8 [2] better recognizes the effect of changing the ground
characteristics, on which the structure is located. According to code PIOVSP’81 [3], for the
structures with fundamental period of vibrations lower than 0.5s, there is no effect of the ground
category.
At last, it is concluded that, considering cracked sections, the structure designed according
to Eurocode 8 [2], is more flexible than the same structure when the code PIOVSP'81 [3] is used.

LITERATURE

[1] V. Bojović: “Modeling of RC frame structure, calculation and comparison of characteristics results,
depending on ground category”, specialist theses, Faculty of Civil engineering, University of
Montenegro, Podgorica, 2019.
[2] “EN 1998-1: 2004: Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[3] “The Code of Technical Regulations for the Design and Construction of Buildings in Seismic
Regions”, Official Gazette of the SFRJ no. 31/1981.
[4] “EN 1992-1-1: 2004; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1-1, General Rules and Rules
for Buildings”, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[5] “The Code of Technical Regulations for Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, PBAB’87, Part 1 and
Part 2”, Official Gazette of the SFRJ no. 11/1987.

378