Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic assessment of existing precast industrial buildings using static and

dynamic nonlinear analyses
Gennaro Magliulo a, , Giovanni Fabbrocino b , Gaetano Manfredi a
a Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy
b Department SAVA Engineering & Environment Division, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy

Received 4 April 2007; received in revised form 4 February 2008; accepted 4 February 2008
Available online 3 April 2008

Abstract

Protection of existing constructions against natural hazards and in particular earthquakes is a relevant problem nowadays, since enlargement of
seismic zones occurred in many European countries. As a consequence, a large number of constructions built without specific seismic provisions
is characterized by relevant levels of structural risk. Quantitative evaluations of such risk is certainly of interest also for industrial buildings, that
in many very urbanized areas are frequently subjected to extended and expensive interventions and changes of functional destinations. In this
framework, a research study on industrial existing precast structures built in Italy between the 1950s and the 1970s appeared to be significant.
Therefore, a large effort has been devoted to identify structural types, details and materials commonly adopted during the reference period.
Then, attention has been paid to seismic vulnerability issues derived from nonlinear and dynamic analyses. Specific reference is made to elastic
analyses under design forces with an evaluation of the relevance of the second order effects, to nonlinear static analyses by N2 method, also
taking into account the vertical seismic component effects and to nonlinear dynamic analyses forcing the structure by all the three components of
the earthquake. The presented research study shows that existing industrial precast buildings can be affected by severe damages under medium
intensity seismic forces because of beamcolumn connection failure.
c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Existing industrial constructions; Precast buildings; Nonlinear analyses; Seismic response; Connections between r.c. members; Vulnerability assessment

1. Introduction
The present paper reports some relevant results of a research
project on seismic vulnerability of existing constructions made
by precast elements. Some representative buildings have been
selected among those built in Italy without any consideration of
horizontal seismic loads. This circumstance applies to a large
number of constructions erected either in those areas affected
by recent review of the seismic classification or before specific
regulations issued firstly in 1974 [1] for structures in seismic
zones. Development of specific procedures for the estimation
of seismic vulnerability of existing precast structures built in
Italy between the 1950s and the 1970s represents a key step
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0817683656; fax: +39 0817683491.
E-mail addresses: gmagliul@unina.it (G. Magliulo),
giovanni.fabbrocino@unimol.it (G. Fabbrocino), gamanfre@unina.it
(G. Manfredi).
not only when relevant structures are concerned, but also when
rehabilitation and functional redesign of large urban areas have
to be carried out.
This circumstance occurs in many large cities where the
growth of urban areas leads to the inclusion of former
industrial districts, resulting in a large effort for conversion and
rehabilitation of existing industrial constructions.
The systematic approach to this topic is based on a wide
review of common structural solutions and techniques used in
particular in Italy during the reference period (1950s1970s)
and a large range of static schemes, different members
connections and used materials are presented in order to show
a rich and detailed panorama of the existing precast buildings.
Furthermore some actually designed structures representa-
tive of industrial buildings spread typologies are examined in
detail. Such phase points out some specific problems related to
the seismic vulnerability assessment of precast industrial build-
ings: eccentricities in beamcolumn connections, effects of the

c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.003
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588
seismic input asynchrony, floor deformations, column slender-
ness, beamcolumn connections based on friction forces and
influence of the seismic vertical component.
In this paper the results concerning two reference buildings
are shown and commented in details. Specific reference is made
to: elastic analyses under design forces with an evaluation of
the relevance of the second order effects; non linear static
analyses by N2 method, also taking into account the vertical
seismic component effects; nonlinear dynamic analyses forcing
the structure by all the three components of the earthquake.
The discussion of the results can be also useful to define some
critical points of the structural modelling of such buildings.
It is worth noting that the work reported herein tackles
a relevant problem that appears to be underestimated
from a scientific standpoint. In fact, recently, International
community [2] has recognized the relevance of seismic
assessment of old type r/c constructions that cannot be easily
compared to new ones due to many aspects [35]. On the other
hand, a few works have been issued on the response of existing
industrial precast buildings. This circumstance is by far more
relevant in Italy, since between the 1950s and 1970s a large
number of constructions were built in many industrial districts
and nowadays they are often exposed to high levels of seismic
risk. This is the reason why the assessment herein proposed
is performed by a rigorous methodology, collecting many and
accurate data on the buildings characteristics and analysing
them by very accurate typologies of analyses, i.e. nonlinear
static and step by step dynamic ones. Finally, a peculiar
weakness of the analysed buildings is shown, confirming real
events observed in Italy during recent earthquakes.
2. Industrial precast structures
Even though completely precast buildings for industrial
destinations were already built before, it is in the 1960s that
a large diffusion of the industrial precast structures can be
observed. The reasons which led to such large scale use
are strictly related to the social and economical scenario
of that time: Europe came from the World War and went
to the reconstruction process. Houses, schools and industrial
structures were largely needed and workers and construction
materials were lacking. On the other hand, it was necessary to
build rapidly and to keep the cost as low as possible. When such
emergency situation was over, the precasting technique was
consolidated, even because of the large diffusion of prestressing
concrete technique, so that from necessity a new structural
system was born, characterized by industrialization and by
serial production.
Based on a review of available data [6], a first rough
classification can be done depending on the layout of main
horizontal members and roof arrangement: full web main beam,
reticular main beam and arch. For spans lower than 30 m,
beams with full web were used, due to the major simplicity
and rapidity of design and production; when longer spans are
concerned full web beam is too heavy and, therefore, reticular
beams were used up to 40 m spans; longer spans were only
covered by arches.
2581
The structural system adopted for the framed precast
industrial buildings could be made by straight elements, frame
parts or one piece frames. In the case of small spans (about
12 m) warehouses, to cast and to assemble separately girders
and columns was not economically convenient; consequently,
the typology characterized by precast frame parts was
preferred: the frames with hinges (two at the frame-foundations
connection, one at the keystone) and the lambda system were
the solutions adopted. The cast in one-piece stiff frames were,
instead, used for less than 12 m spans; such frames were often
adopted for the creation of skylights. The limited range of use of
the cast in one-piece frames was due both to the internal forces
which arise in the case of differential drifts and to transportation
difficulties. For this reason such frames were only adopted
when the precasting in situ could be easy to manage.
As regards the materials, steel and concrete used for
prestressed members were characterized by the highest
performance available at that time. Seven wire strands or high
strength bars (yielding stress above 700 N/mm2 ) were used
for prestressing; concrete for such applications rarely was
characterized by a compressive strength lower than 35 N/mm2 .
Typical values of mild reinforcing steel yielding stress and
concrete compressive strength for common applications were
320 N/mm2 and 25 N/mm2 respectively.
Smooth rebars were widely used, even if in precast structures
deformed bars were more frequent than in other constructions.
Aq. 42, Aq. 50 and Aq. 60 were denominations, according
to old provisions, for 3 classes of steel, having the following
properties: maximum tensile strength range 420500, 500600
and 600700 N/mm2 respectively, yielding strength equal to or
larger than 230, 270 and 310 N/mm2 and ultimate elongation
evaluated on 10 diameters equal to or larger than 20%,
16% and 14% respectively. FeB38k and FeB44k have been
subsequent classes of steel, also currently used in Italy, with
yielding strength equal to 380 and 440 N/mm2 respectively
and with maximum tensile strength equal to 460 N/mm2 and
550 N/mm2 respectively.
In the reference period the cements were classified according
to the normal mortar maximum strength at the age of 28 days:
50, 60, 68 and 73 N/mm2 were the cement classes spread in the
Italian market; the production of classes 32.5, 42.5 and 52.5,
also currently used, started at the end of 1960s.
Beamcolumn connections were realized putting the beam
on the column, whose top end could eventually have a fork
shape or cantilevers. Even in this case, a support device was
interposed between the connected elements, which allowed
a right pressure distribution, avoiding possible cracks of the
concrete; sometimes, in the case of small structures, such
device was not used. The support element, when used, could
be characterized by: (1) a reinforced mortar bearing with
thickness at least equal to 1.5 cm; (2) a rubber or synthetic resin
bearing; (3) two metallic plates anchored in the concrete; (4) a
hard lead plate between two metallic sheets which protect the
concrete; the lead, deforming itself under the load, provides a
pin connection.
2582 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588
Fig. 1. Building B (left) and building E (right) geometry.
Fig. 2. Building B: column (left) and reticular beam (right).
3. The reference buildings
The described research study is also addressed to individuate
some reference buildings, representative of structural solutions,
in terms of typology and dimensions, characterizing the
patrimony concerning the precast industrial buildings erected
in Italy in the period from the 1950s to the half 1970s.
Some reference buildings were individuated and anal-
ysed [6], but herein, for sake of brevity, only the results of build-
ings called B and E, considered the most representative,
are presented. A summary of their structural characteristics is
reported in the following.
3.1. Building B
The building presents a simple and geometrically regular
structural scheme (Fig. 1). The rectangular plan covers an area
of about 1110 m2 , whose major side is equal to 45.4 m and the
minor one equal to 24.4 m; it is characterized by rectangular
nets 25 4 m made by square (40 40 cm) columns whose
length, computed from the foundations, is equal to 6.20 m.
These columns are connected by r/c reticular beams (Fig. 2)
and by r/c gutter beams; these last ones can be considered
trusses orthogonal to the main frames. The beam to column
connections are made by one sheet neoprene bearings.
The roof is placed on the reticular beams; it is made by r/c
precast ribbed tiles and connected to the gutter beam by a cast
in situ. Even the tiles are connected by a cast in ribs placed
on their sides. The foundations are made by smooth socket
footings, where the columns are placed for a depth equal to
80 cm and fixed by cement mortar. The perimeter panels are
made in situ. The collected data allow the computation of the
building external loads.
The mechanical characteristics of materials used for the
main structural elements (columns, reticular beams, gutter
beams and foundations) are: concrete with f ck,cube =
35 N/mm2 ; cement class 52.5; ribbed bars steel FeB44K;
stirrups steel Aq. 60.
3.2. Building E
The building presents a simple and geometrically regular
structural scheme (Fig. 1). The rectangular plan covers an area
of about 730 m2 , whose major side is equal to 34 m and the
minor one equal to 21.50 m; it is characterized by rectangular
nets 21.504.85 m made by rectangular (5060 cm) columns,
whose length, computed from the foundations, is equal to
7 m (Fig. 3). These columns, in the transversal direction, are
connected by prestressed r/c full web and variable section
beams; in the longitudinal direction, instead, by cast in situ
rectangular beams placed at middle height. The connection
between the main beams and the columns is made by one sheet
neoprene bearings. The roof, placed on the variable section
beams, is made by a precast joisted floor. The perimeter panels
are made in situ by brick walls. The collected data allow the
computation of the building external loads.
The mechanical characteristics of materials used for the
main structural elements are briefly listed in Table 1, where ar
and 0.2 indicate the steel maximum tensile strength and the
assumed yielding strength respectively.
4. Numerical analyses
The aim of numerical analyses is the evaluation of the
seismic capacity of the reference buildings presented in the
previous section, in order to determine, in a simplified manner,
their vulnerability; in this evaluation the demand is identified
assuming that the buildings are placed in an area of Southern
Italy characterized by a PGA equal to 0.21g and choosing a
return period equal to 475 years. Therefore, attention is paid to
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588
Fig. 3. Building E: column section (left) and footing (right).
Table 1
Mechanical characteristics of the building E main elements
Element Material characteristics
Columns Concrete with f ck,cube = 35 N/mm2 ;
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement steel
Aq 42.
Variable sec. beams Concrete made by cement type 850,
f ck,cube 55 N/mm2 ; high strength steel
made by 33, ar 1850 N/mm2 and
0.2 1450 N/mm2 ;
Footings Concrete with f ck,cube = 35 N/mm2 ;
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement steel
Aq 42.
Zone 2 areas according to recent seismic classification (OPCM
3274 [7]), which are medium seismic risk areas; furthermore, it
is assumed that structures are located in regions affected by an
increase of seismic classification.
Representative buildings are studied both in the elastic
field and by non linear analyses. Useful information have
been obtained by elastic analyses, made on spatial models
by the computer program SAP2000 [8], taking into account
beamcolumn connections geometrical eccentricities: modal
shapes with vibration frequencies and axial forces of columns
due to vertical loads to be combined with seismic forces; in
this combination live loads are reduced according to Eurocode
8 (EC8) [9].
The first three periods of building B are 0.674 s
(longitudinal dir.), 0.590 s (transverse dir.) and 0.497 s
(rotational), while the 6th, equal to 0.195 s, is the most
important vertical one; the building E ones are 0.402 s
(transverse dir.), 0.330 s (longitudinal dir.), 0.304 s (rotational),
0.288 s (vertical). Results of modal analysis are shown in
Table 2 with reference to building B: it reports all modes with
effective modal masses greater than 5% of the total mass. It is
worth noting that, as expected, a limited number of horizontal
and rotational vibration modes is needed to get a total amount of
effective modal masses greater than 90%; conversely, as vertical
vibration modes are concerned, a larger computational effort is
required, since higher modes can play a relevant role. This issue
is a key aspect even for design purposes, due to the long spans
and to the use of prestressed members, that have to be verified
considering the vertical seismic component.
2583
For both the structures the hypothesis of rigid in its plane
floor can be referred, depending on roof structural detailing.
Even though for precast buildings the second order effects
can be relevant, the coefficient:
Ptot dr
= (1)
Vtot h
is for both the cases minor than 0.1, in particular 0.049
for building B and 0.013 for building E; consequently,
according to EC8 [9], the second order effects can be neglected.
In formula (1) Ptot is the total gravity load at and above the
storey considered in the seismic design situation, dr is the
design interstorey drift (amplified by the q factor), evaluated
considering a design spectrum with PGA = 0.21g (which
represents the maximum acceleration of the reference seismic
zone assumed for the research study cited in the introduction)
and soil type 1 C, Vtot is the total seismic weight and h is the
interstorey height.
5. Non linear static analyses
Nonlinear static analyses are performed on plane models,
representing internal frames of the buildings B and E in the
direction evaluated as the most critical. The computer program
used for such analyses is DRAIN-2DX [10]; the columns
are modelled by lumped plasticity elements, characterized by
a trilinear moment-rotation relationship. This relationship is
computed considering for steel an elastic-plastic behaviour with
hardening, while for concrete the confinement effect is taken
into account by the Mander & Priestley theory [11,12]; the
material maximum strengths are the experimental tests average
ones given by literature [13].
The simple bearings of the beams on the columns are
modelled by elastic relationships, which take into account
the neoprene transverse deformability and whose maximum
value is limited by the maximum friction force, evaluated as a
function of friction coefficient neoprene-concrete; this is found
in literature [1418] mainly varying between 0.6 and 0.9. Such
parameter represents one of the critical aspects of the analysis
of the examined structures. Indeed, it can be important in the
evaluation of structural collapse, which could even happen
due to bearing failure; furthermore, it is difficult to estimate,
because the technical literature on the topic is not complete
2584 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588

Table 2
Modal participating mass ratios for building B

Mode number Period (s) UX UY UZ Total UX Total UY Total UZ RZ Total RZ

1 0.674 5.28E16 0.97 8.47E13 5.28E16 0.97 8.47E13 0.15 0.15
2 0.590 1 3.25E14 1.08E14 1 0.97 8.58E13 0.55 0.7
3 0.497 3.44E18 9.65E14 6.32E12 1 0.97 7.18E12 0.29 0.99
6 0.195 1.26E12 9.17E12 0.3600 1 0.98 0.39 9.30E12 0.99
8 0.188 3.6E12 4.19E11 0.0571 1 0.98 0.45 3.37E11 0.99
122 0.050 1.72E12 6.63E11 0.0592 1 1 0.55 1.12E11 1
144 0.038 1.89E13 7.32E15 0.0588 1 1 0.61 1.66E13 1
198 0.023 1.37E17 9.37E15 0.1800 1 1 0.83 2.31E13 1

and design rules give much lower limit values: for this reason a
range of values has been adopted.
In Fig. 4 for building B and in Fig. 5 for building E,
the curve base shear, divided by the seismic weight of the
frame, top (covers centre of mass) displacement, divided by
the building height, is reported (red thick line); the frames are
pushed till the collapse displacement, which for both the cases
corresponds to the attainment of the ultimate rotation at the
column base and to a total strength which is lower than the
friction force corresponding to the minimum assumed friction
coefficient: the dashed lines V 0.60 (blue) and V 0.90 (black)
indicate the strength at the bearing failure due to the attainment Fig. 4. Nonlinear static analysis results for building B. (For interpretation of
of the friction force when the friction coefficient is equal to the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
0.60 and 0.90 respectively. The value of the total chord rotation version of this article.)
capacity is computed according to the expression given by the
EC8 [19,20]:
0.225
max(0, 01; 0 )

1
u = 0, 016 (0, 3 ) fc
el max(0, 01; )
L V 0,35
 
f
 
sx yw
25 fc
(1, 25100d ) (2)
h
where
el = 1.5, as prescribed by EC8 for primary elements;
h is the cross-section depth;
LV = M V is the moment/shear ratio at the end section;
= bhNfc (b width of compression zone, N axial force assumed Fig. 5. Nonlinear static analysis results for building E. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
positive in compression); version of this article.)
and 0 is the mechanical reinforcement ratio of the
longitudinal reinforcement in tension (including the web the ultimate rotation is multiplied by 0.85 due to the fact that the
reinforcement) and in compression respectively; members do not have detailing for earthquake resistance. The
f c and f yw are respectively the medium concrete compressive chord rotation capacity corresponding to significant damage
strength according to EC2 [21] provisions and the steel yield S D is assumed to be 3/4 of the ultimate chord rotation u given
strength obtained as already specified; in (2). In Figs. 4 and 5 the capacity in terms of top displacement
sx = bAwsxsh , where Asx is the area of transverse steel parallel corresponding to the Limit State of Significant Damage (SD) is
to the loading direction X , sh is the stirrups spacing and bw is represented by the black triangle, while the one corresponding
the web width; to the Limit State of Near Collapse (NC) by the black circle.
d = 0 is the steel ratio of diagonal P reinforcement; The seismic demand is evaluated according to the N2
sh sh b2
= (1 2b 0
)(1 2h 0
)(1 6h 0 bi0 ) is the confinement method, adopting as input in the case of SD the same spectrum
effectiveness factor, where b0 and h 0 are the dimensions of the used for linear analyses, i.e. EC8 [9] elastic spectrum with
hoop centreline and bi is the centreline spacing of longitudinal PGA = 0.21g and soil type 1 C; while, in order to determine the
bars (indexed by i) laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or a demand in the case of NC, the same spectrum is amplified by
cross tie along the perimeter of the cross-section. the factor 1.5, as prescribed by the Italian seismic code [7,22].
The confidence factor is assumed equal to 1.0, in order to The target-displacement at the SD Limit State is computed as
reduce the number of parameters which condition the results; the intersection between the bilinear capacity curve (red thin
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588 2585

curve in Figs. 4 and 5) and the inelastic spectrum characterized

by = R (T > T c) (green continuous curve in Figs. 4 and
5); this target displacement, amplified by a coefficient equal to
1.5, gives the one at the NC Limit State. In Figs. 4 and 5 the SD
target displacement is represented by the empty triangle, while
the NC one by the empty circle: it is evident that for both the
analysed frames both the limit state verifications are satisfied.
In order to take into account in a simplified static way the
detrimental effect of the earthquake vertical seismic component
on bearing friction force, the load on bearings is decreased
by the vertical seismic force computed by the vertical EC8
design spectrum (PGA = 0.21, soil type 1 C) assigning
q = 1; according to the modal analysis, as already said, the
Fig. 6. Spectra of the scaled earthquake horizontal components and EC8 design
fundamental period of the building B vertical oscillations is horizontal spectrum.
0.195 s, while it is 0.288 s in the case of building E. The
connection friction strength corresponding to such condition is column non linear behaviour is assigned by lumped plasticity
represented in Figs. 4 and 5 by the continuous straight lines models, characterized at plastic hinges by rigid-plastic with
V-Sv 0.90 (black) and V-Sv 0.60 (blue) for the values of the hardening curves. Concerning the cycling behaviour, for sake of
friction coefficient equal to 0.90 and 0.60 respectively: such simplicity no stiffness and strength degradation is considered.
condition does not affect the capacity of the analysed frames, The neoprene beamcolumn connections are modelled taking
which is still dependent by the attainment of the ultimate into account the elastic deformation of the rubber, in particular
rotation at the column base. the normal, shear and rotational stiffnesses are assumed
It is to be underlined that, generally, at the displacements respectively
attained by the push over curve for this kind of structures, the !
E g A g 1 + 0.5 c n 21 G g Ag
second order effects can influence the results; however, for the Kn = ; Kt = ;
particular cases reported herein, such effects are not relevant, hg 1 c2 hg
as also shown by the (1). In any case, the conclusion that,
!
E g Ig 1 + 0.1 c n 21
according to the performed nonlinear push over analyses, the K =
frame structural failure is due to the attainment of the maximum
hg 1 2c
plastic rotation which precedes the support failure is valid, where c is a coefficient taking into account the neoprene
considering that second order effects can decrease the ultimate hardness, which, for soft rubbers, is equal to 0.5, while n 1 is
push over strength and do not affect the friction force. the neoprene support shape coefficient, taken by the document
The capacity of structure E, whose columns are CNR10018 issued by the Italian National Research Centre [26];
characterized by smooth rebars, is also reported in Fig. 5, by E g , G g , Ig , A g and h g are respectively the neoprene Young and
a dot line, in the case such rebars do not present hooks: the shear modulus, moment of inertia, area and thickness.
collapse is due to the bar pull-out caused by the absence of
end anchoring devices. It is worth noting that this appears 6.2. Seismic input
to be the worst condition [23,24], since recent experimental
In order to study the beamcolumn connection behaviour
tests and modelling [25] have demonstrated the efficiency
under seismic input, the structure is forced by three different
of circular 135 hooks as smooth reinforcement restraint.
earthquakes, Imperial Valley, Northridge and Kern County,
Furthermore, such a failure mode points out the relevance
each of them considered with its three components. The first
of in situ verification of reinforcement detailing according to
is chosen because frequently used in research studies, the
knowledge levels reported in EC8, even though it is to be said
second and the third because near field and far field records
that precast structures are generally better executed with respect
are available; the records main characteristics are reported in
to cast in situ ones.
Table 3.
Any effect due to seismic input asynchrony at the base of
Each earthquake listed in Table 3 is scaled, so that the
different columns is neglected at the present stage.
ordinate of the relative principal component (the horizontal
component with the largest PGA) is equal to the ordinate, at the
6. Non linear dynamic analyses
first period of the structure, of the EC8 spectrum [9] for soil C
and PGA equal to 0.21g (Figs. 6 and 7); the scaling coefficients
6.1. Modelling
are 0.93, 0.29 and 1.89 for El Centro, Rinaldi and Taft records
respectively.
In order to take into account in a more accurate way the
effects of the simultaneous action of the three components of 6.3. Results and discussion
the earthquake, non linear dynamic analyses are carried out
by the program SAP2000 [8] on a 3D model of the structure. Dynamic analyses are performed in order to understand if
The elastic model is the one used for elastic analyses. The the support friction strength can condition the collapse of the
2586 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588

Table 3
Seismic input data

Earthquake Record Date Hour Compon. PGA Compon. PGA Compon. PGA
Imperial valley El Centro 19/05/40 04:37 ELC-270 0.313g ELC-180 0.215g ELC-UP 0.205g
Northridge Rinaldi rec. st. 17/01/94 12:31 RRS-288 0.838g RRS-318 0.472g RRS-UP 0.852g
Kern county Taft Lincoln Sch. 21/07/52 11:53 Taf-111 0.178g Taf-021 0.156g Taf-UP 0.109g

Table 4
Base rotations, friction coefficients and top displacements

Record Dir. Lateral column Corner column

max (rad) max
s u max (cm) max (rad) max
s u max (cm) y (rad) u (rad) lim
s
X 0.0248 0.173 4.36 0.0252 2.87 4.60
El Centro
Y 0.0209 0.157 3.04 0.0209 2.02 3.04

X 0.0249 0.188 5.46 0.0254 1.70 5.74

Rinaldi 0.0192 0.0514 0.6
Y 0.0192 0.134 1.82 0.0192 1.32 1.82
X 0.0229 0.185 3.07 0.0232 2.19 3.25
Taft
Y 0.0212 0.176 3.23 0.0212 1.77 3.23

displacements are reached and in some cases almost 6 cm, about

Fig. 7. Spectra of the scaled earthquake vertical components and EC8 design
vertical spectrum.
structure; for this reason, internal forces at the base and at the
beam to column connection of a lateral and a corner column of
building B are investigated.
The principal component of each earthquake is applied
along the transversal (X ) direction of the building. As reported
in Table 4, under all the three earthquakes, the analysed
columns base sections exceed the yielding rotation, equal to
0.0192 rad according to EC8 [19], while the ultimate rotation,
which is equal to 0.0514 rad according to the EC8 empirical
formula [19], is not reached. Considering the average on
the three earthquakes, at the beamcolumn connection, the
maximum shear-axial force ratio is equal to 0.18 along X
direction and to 0.16 along Y direction at the lateral column,
while it is equal to 2.2 (X direction) and to 1.7 (Y direction) at
the corner column: the friction resistance is exceeded and this
can lead to structural collapse due to connection failure. This
aspect is focused in Table 4, where relevant results in terms of
absolute displacements and rotations depending on the friction
coefficient are reported. It is easy to recognize that large lateral
1% of the storey height, are detected.
In Fig. 8 time histories of axial force and of shear/axial
force ratio are reported at beam to column connection of lateral
column (A) and of corner column (B); the horizontal lines at
T /N = 0.6 correspond to the maximum friction resistance,
considering a friction coefficient neoprene-concrete equal to
0.6: it is evident that the friction resistance at the corner column
is exceeded. Time histories of X direction top displacements
and bottom plastic rotations are also shown with reference to
mentioned members.
A comparative analysis of the base rotation and of the
shearaxial force ratio time histories shows that when friction
limit strength is exceeded (at 1.83 s in the case of El Centro, X
dir.) the maximum rotation does not exceed yielding rotation,
so that columns are still in the linear elastic range (till 2.2 s in
the case of El Centro, X dir.).
Such results agree with post-earthquake damage assessment.
In particular, reference can be made to industrial buildings
collapsed during the Friuli earthquake (1976); in this specific
case, collapse was related to beam to column connection failure.
Furthermore, the results confirm that some critical aspects
affect existing precast concrete structures. In view of seismic
performance upgrading, a primary role is played by connections
between members and by mechanical slenderness of columns
that can influence the overall response of the buildings.
Another issue is related to the connections between
structural members, namely columns and beams, and infills
and/or external r/c panels. In fact, such interaction has been
completely neglected in the present paper, but it seems to be
relevant not only at failure, but also at serviceability limit state.
Provisions given by present seismic design codes for new
constructions (EC8) can be addressed as appropriate references
to enhance the structural performance of existing buildings.
Obviously, combination of advanced connection devices and
materials can help to protect buildings of interest.
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588 2587

Fig. 8. Time histories for EI Centro record of axial force and of shear/axial force ratio at beam to column connection of a lateral (A) and a corner (B) column; time
history of top displacement and base plastic rotation of corner column.

7. Conclusions using planar models show weak aspects if compared with

The paper deals with the seismic vulnerability assessment
of industrial precast buildings erected in Italy between the
1950s and the 1970s. Elastic, nonlinear static and nonlinear
dynamic analyses are performed on representative buildings,
whose choice is based on a large investigation on structural
typologies, details and materials.
Elastic analyses show that high frequency modes are to
be considered in order to take into account the effects of the
seismic vertical component.
Nonlinear static analyses, performed according to EC8, give
two main indications. (1) Simplified seismic analyses made
three dimensional nonlinear dynamic ones, even though precast
regular buildings are considered. Kinematic interaction related
to strongly nonlinear effects, like friction forces and localized
deformations due to anchoring and connecting devices, leads
to complex seismic response, especially if multicomponent
seismic input is considered. This circumstance is much more
relevant whenever existing structures are considered; careful
design of new precast systems and components can, however,
mitigate such phenomena. (2) Smooth bar pull-out, caused by
the absence of end anchoring devices, as hooks, can lead to
building collapse.
2588 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 25802588
Nonlinear dynamic analyses, performed on space models
subjected to the three components of the earthquake, show that,
considering an Italian medium seismicity zone, the capacity, in
terms of base column chord rotation, is always larger than the
demand; but the variation of the axial force, more significant
at the corner columns where the static vertical load is lower,
can cause the sliding of the beam on the column and then
the building failure due to loss of support. This confirms
observations of real events. The obtained results also show the
suitability of nonlinear dynamic analysis: the three-dimensional
characteristics of the model and of the input can be opportunely
taken into account as well as the dynamic characteristics of the
structure.
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially funded by the Italian
Department of Civil Protection in the frame of the National
Project ReLUIS, Theme 2, task PREFAB. The coordinator
of the task at University of Naples Federico II is Prof.
G. Manfredi; the coordinator at University of Molise is Prof.
G. Fabbrocino.
References
[1] Law n. 64 of February the 2nd 1974 Provvedimenti per le costruzioni
con particolari prescrizioni per le zone sismiche [in Italian].
[2] Fib Bulletin 24. Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete
buildings. State of art report prepared by task group 7.1. 2003.
[3] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Structural models
of critical regions in old type r.c. frames with smooth rebars. Engineering
Structures 2004;26(14):213748.
[4] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Polese M. Crack width and steel stress
estimation in critical regions of r.c. frames with smooth rebars. In: fib
symposium Keep Concrete Attractive. 2005.
[5] Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G.
Seismic risk for Italian type r.c. buildings. In: 1st European conference
on earthquake engineering and seismology. 2006.
[6] Fabbrocino G, Magliulo G, Manfredi G. Seismic vulnerability of existing
industrial precast structures. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. 2004.
[7] Ordinanza n. 3274 del 20 marzo 2003. Primi elementi in materia di
criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di
normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica [in Italian].
[8] Computer & Structures, Inc SAP2000 Advanced 9.0.3, Structural
Analysis Program. California, Berkeley; 1994.
[9] CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part
1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Final draft, prEN
1998-1, Brussels; 2003.
[10] Prakash V, Powell GH, Campbell S. DRAIN-2DX, base program
description and user guide. California, Berkeley; 1993.
[11] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model
for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 1988;114(8):
180425.
[12] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings. A wiley interscience publication, New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc; 1992. p. 95105.
[13] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Verderame GM. Seismic assessment of gravity
load designed r.c. frames: Critical issues in structural modeling. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(1):10122.
[14] Di Pasquale S, Messina C, Paolini L, Furiozzi B. In: Le Monnier, editor.
Prontuario per il calcolo di elementi strutturali. 1991 [in Italian].
[15] Esposito T, Mauro R. In: Benevento Hevelius, editor. Fondamenti di
infrastrutture viarie. 2003 [in Italian].
[16] Raymond A. Physics for Scientists and engineers. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston ed; 1996.
[17] Southern Illinois University. Centre for advanced friction studies.
Database 2004.
[18] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. PCI design handbook. Precast and
Prestressed Concrete. 5th ed Chicago, Illinois: Raths & Jhonson Inc.;
1999.
[19] CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3:
Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. UNI EN 1998-3, Brussels; 2005.
[20] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of reinforced concrete
members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal 2001;98(2):
13548.
[21] CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 11: General
rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1, Brussels; 2004.
[22] Ordinanza n. 3431 del 3 maggio 2005. Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni
allordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20
marzo. 2003 [in Italian].
[23] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Rotational capacity of old
type r.c. columns. In: fib symposium keep concrete attractive. 2005.
[24] Elingehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress-slip relation-
ships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. UCB/EERC-83/23;
1983.
[25] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Experimental behaviour of
anchored bars in old type r.c. buildings. Engineering Structures 2005;
27(10):157585.
[26] CNR. Apparecchi di appoggio per le costruzioni. Istruzioni per limpiego
(CNR 10018). Rome; 1999 [in Italian].