FRP Structural Design

Giosue' Boscato, Carlo Casalegno, Salvatore Russo
DESIGN OF
FRP STRUCTURES
IN SEISMIC ZONE
Design of FRP structures in seismic zone
DESIGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC ZONE
Giosuè Boscato(**)
Carlo Casalegno(*)
Salvatore Russo(*)
(*) IUAV University of Venice, Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments,
Dorsoduro 2206, 30123, Venice, Italy, phone +39 041 2571290 fax +39 041 5312988;
russo@iuav.it
(**) IUAV University of Venice, Laboratory of Strength of Materials (LabSCo), Via Torino 153/A -
30173 Mestre, Venice, Italy, phone +39 041 2571481 fax +39 041 5312988; gboscato@iuav.it
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

1
Preface
The use of FRP (Fibre Reinforced Polymer) material in the structural engineering field is by now
current practice and supported by theoretical studies as well as many applications and constructions.
FRP material is widely accepted in the strengthening of existing structures (made by reinforced
concrete, steel, wood and masonry) but not yet commonly used for new buildings even if some
recent all-FRP constructions, in particular built with FRP members made by pultrusion process, are
very promising.
The study of the structural behaviour of pultruded FRP members, especially in the case of static
loads, has been widely developed. Instead, for what concerns the dynamic response, very few
experimental and analytical research projects have been proposed. The issue is particularly
interesting because of the mechanical characteristics of pultruded FRP material. The elastic-brittle
constitutive law with anisotropic mechanical behaviour imposes some specific precautions, while
the high durability, the low density of 1700-1900 kg/m3 and the relatively high values of strength
suggest its potential and promising application also in seismic zones.
The dynamic properties of pultruded FRP material are characterized by high periods of vibration,
low frequency and a spontaneous dissipative capacity of the dynamic actions due to its low density.
Currently there are no available guidances for the seismic design for structures with pultruded FRP
members.
The aim of this manual is to address the issues related to the design of pultruded FRP structures
subjected to static and dynamic loading.
After a thorough introduction the manual gives a practical guidance on how to address the structural
design of pultruded FRP structures. The final part – chapter 5 - is dedicated to a new software,
named FRP-Design Software (FRP-DS), with which is possible set up to structural verifications in
supporting the common commercial numerical code.
For the use of this present manual it is considered fundamental that the reader is in possession of the
information already available in the following documents:
CNR-DT205/2007. Guide for the design and constructions of structures made of FRP pultruded
elements, National Research Council of Italy, Advisory Board on Technical Recommendations.
http://www.cnr.it/sitocnr/IlCNR/Attivita/NormazioneeCertificazione/DT205_2007.html.
CEN TC250 WG4L, Ascione, J-F. Caron, P. Godonou, K. van IJselmuijden, J. Knippers, T.
Mottram, M. Oppe, M. Gantriis Sorensen, J. Taby, L. Tromp. Editors: L.Ascione, E. Gutierrez, S.
Dimova, A. Pinto, S. Denton. ‘Prospect for New Guidance in the Design of FRP,’ Support to the

2
implementation and further development of the Eurocodes, JRC Science and Policy Report
JRC99714, EUR 27666 EN, European Union, Luxembourg, (2016), p 171. ISBN 978-92-79-
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
NTC08. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (last update of the Italian Building Code), Decree of
the Ministry of Infrastructures of 14th January 2008. (in Italian).
Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings. EN1998-1:2004 (E): Formal Vote Version (Stage 49), 2004.
The development of the manual is the following:
Chapter 1 (pp. 6 - 20), INTRODUCTION, provides a general background on FRP pultruded

profiles, for what concerns the material, the structural behavior, the availability of standards,
guidance documents and manuals; a part is dedicated to notable applications.
In Chapter 2 (pp. 21 - 35), BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS, the synthesis
of the key-aspects related to the seismic design, such as the definition of period of vibration,
damping coefficient, behaviour factor and the dissipation capacity are discussed.
Chapter 3 (pp. 36 - 87), EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION, provides a calculation example of a FRP

spatial truss structure taking into account the different load combinations in static and seismic fields
and the analysis at ultimate and serviceability limit state.
In Chapter 4 (pp. 88 - 94), FINAL EVALUATION FOR DEISGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN

SEISMIC ZONE, some final considerations for the design of FRP structures in seismic zone are
presented.
Chapter 5 (pp. 95 - 116), FRP DESIGN SOFTWARE (FRP-DS), illustrates the features of the FRP-
Design Software.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Top Glass SpA (www.topglass.it) for the understanding of the potential capacity
of the pultruded FRP material in civil engineering, architecture and construction fields. This work
was possible thanks to the fundamental support of the Top Glass SpA and OCV Italia Srl - OWENS
CORNING (www.ocvitalia.it) and Polynt (www.polynt.it) as official suppliers of raw materials used
for the manufacturing of profiles used in experimental tests.
The authors thank also Eng. Mauro Calderan, from IUAV University of Venice, Italy, who
collaborated to the build the FRP-DS software.

3
Index
 INTRODUCTION p. 6
1.1. Overview
1.2. Materials and manufacturing
1.3. Normative, design guidelines and technical references
1.4. Constructions and applications with pultruded FRP profiles
 SYNTHESIS OF BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS p. 20
 EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION p. 35
3.1. Statement of the structural design
3.2. Materials
3.3. Basic assumptions
3.4. Load analysis
3.4.1. Permanent loads
3.4.2. Variable loads
3.4.3. Seismic analysis
3.4.3.1. Modal analysis
3.4.3.2. Spectral analysis
3.4.3.2.1. Elastic response spectrum
3.4.3.2.2. Design spectra for ULS design
3.4.3.2.3. Displacement response spectra
3.4.3.3. Pushover analysis
3.5. ULS analysis
3.5.1. Forces and moments diagrams
3.5.1.1. Axial force
3.5.1.2. Bending moment
3.5.1.3. Shear force
3.5.1.4. Torsional moment
3.5.2. Example of verification of a compressed member
3.6. SLS analysis
3.6.2. Verification of elements
3.6.2.1. Stresses
3.6.2.2. Deformations
3.7. Joint's verification
3.7.1. Net-tension failure of the plate
3.7.2. Shear-out failure of the plate
3.7.3. Bearing failure of the plate
3.7.4. Shear failure of the steel bolt
3.8. References
 FINAL EVALUATION FOR DESIGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC p. 86
ZONE
4.1. References
4.2. Symbols
4.3. Verification’s functions
4.4. References
4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Overview
Starting from the 90's there has been a signiﬁcant increase throughout the world in the use of
pultruded FRP members in primary load-bearing systems for general constructions, as well as for
strengthening and rehabilitation of existing structures. The interest in this material lies in the several
advantages that it offers compared with traditional construction materials, such as the corrosion
resistance, the durability, the high strength to weight ratio, the versatility and the ease of
transportation and erection.
FRP structural profiles are commonly produced through the pultrusion process. General profiles
present the same cross-sectional shapes (I, H, leg-angle, channel, box, etc.) as found in structural
steelwork. They consist of fibre reinforcement with layers of unidirectional roving along Z-direction
covered by continuous mats, in X- and Y-directions, in a resin-based matrix, see Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 "I" FRP pultruded open shape

Different fibres, characterized by different mechanical properties, can be adopted. Their percentage
in volume can also be varied, as well as their dimensions, geometry and orientation, defining
different mechanical properties of the final products. Also the resin matrix can have different
characteristics, but the performance of the final product mostly depends on the type and percentage
of reinforcement. Anyway, the matrix plays a significant role in the transverse mechanical behavior,
and in specific performance characteristics as the impact strength and the cyclic behavior. This
production versatility allows the design of the FRP material to be oriented time by time with respect
to specific structural applications.
The mass density of the pultruded FRP material is between 1700-1900 kg/m3, that is about 1/4 of
steel density, while the tensile strength in the longitudinal direction is more than 240 MPa.
Nevertheless, the use of FRP structural profiles in civil engineering presents also some sensitive
aspects, such as the high deformability, the anisotropic and brittle-elastic behavior. The longitudinal
modulus of elasticity lies in the range of 20-30 GPa and both the elastic modulus and the strength
values are significantly lower in the transversal direction, where the influence of the matrix is

5
dominant due to the pultrusion process. Moreover, the pultruded FRP material presents different
characteristics in tension and compression. In general, the risk of buckling tends to govern the
design.
Due to the brittle-elastic behavior of the material, it is not possible to take advantage of the plastic
deformation and of the related dissipation capacity; this aspect partially influences the seismic
design approach. Nevertheless, some ductile phenomena are observed focusing on structural
systems, particularly on the moment–rotation curves of all-FRP beam-column connections.
Similarly to steel structures, the design of joints represents one of the most important aspects. The
preferred method of connecting the FRP profiles is by means of bolted joints that mimic steel
connections, sometimes used in conjunction with adhesives; the bolts are usually made of steel.
Nevertheless, due to the anisotropy the mechanical behavior of joints is more complex than that
realized with isotropic materials.
1.2. Materials and manufacturing
FRP materials are realized by the combination of fibres and matrix. The fibres generally used for
the realization of structural FRP composite members are carbon, aramid, PVA and glass; the glass
fibre is the most commonly employed, due to the relatively low cost and the good mechanical
properties. In general, pultruded FRP elements are realized with a volume percentage of continuous
filaments of fibres around 40%. The mechanical properties of the fibres are orders of magnitude
greater than those of the polymer resin that they reinforce. The function of the matrix is first of all
to protect the fibres. Moreover, it creates the continuity, through the cohesion, between the
filaments of fibres; it guarantees the transferring of the stresses between the fibres through its shear
stiffness and creates, through also the polymerization process, the desired shape. The matrices most
commonly employed for the realization of the fibre reinforced composites are polyester and
vinylester but they can be also thermoplastic, thermosetting and epoxy type. The mechanical
characteristics of some commonly used fibres and matrices are reported in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. The
tensile behavior of the FRP material is linear elastic up to failure, which is characterized by a brittle
mechanism. The behavior of the FRP material is anisotropic, due to fibres orientation, and - as
already specified - the mechanical performances in the transversal directions is significantly lower
than the one in the longitudinal direction.
The main manufacturing methods used to produce FRP material are the pultrusion process, the hand
lay-up, the filament winding and the molding process. Pultrusion is a continuous process used to
create FRP mono-dimensional elements with constant cross-section. A pultruded member can have

6
a symmetric or asymmetric open cross-section, a single closed cross-section or a multicellular

cross-section. In the pultrusion process the reinforcing material impregnated with the resin is guided
into a heated die, where it is cured to form the desired part as illustrated in Figure 1.2. The FRP is
cured as the material is pulled through the die by a pulling apparatus. After exiting the die and
extending past the pullers, the part is cut to length. In profiles produced through the pultrusion
process the internal core constituted by continuous longitudinal fibres, called roving, is covered by
an external thin layer of short fibres with random orientation, called mat, whose function is to
increase the transversal stiffness.
Figure 1.2 Pultrusion process (courtesy of TopGlass)

Hand lay-up is a manual method of constructing an FRP composite part by laying up successive
layers of fibres into a mold and impregnating them with a liquid polymer resin, which than cures to
form a solid FRP composite element. Typical products realized through the hand lay-up technique
are boat hulls, tanks and ducts. The filament winding method is used to create tubular and big
hollow products such as stay-in-place column forms, pipes, poles and pressure tanks. The process
consists in wounding continuously a resin-saturated fibre roving around a cylindrical mandrel at a
variety of wind angles. Finally, different variations of open and closed molding can be used to
create panels for FRP bridge deck, sandwich, fender piles, and plates for connections. In this
process, the dry fibres forms are arranged in molds and are saturated with resin and cured.
Indicatively the ranges of physical and mechanical characteristics of pultruded FRP material are
shown in Table 1.3.
Reinforcing fibre Tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa) Ultimate strain (‰)
Carbon 2400-5700 230-400 3-18
Aramid 2400-3150 62-142 15-44
Glass 3300-4500 72-87 48-50
PVA 870-1350 8-28 90-170
Table 1.1. Mechanical properties of fibres
Reinforcing fibre Tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)

Unsaturated polyester 34-104 2.0-4.4
Epoxy resin 55-130 2.7-4.0
Phenolic resin 50-55 3
Table 1.2. Mechanical properties of resins

7
Mechanical properties Notations Range values

Tensile strength (L) σZ 200-500 MPa
Tensile strength (T) σ X = σY 50-70 MPa
Elastic modulus (L) EZ= EL 20-30 GPa
Elastic modulus (T) EX = EY=ET 8-8.5 GPa
Shear modulus (L) GXY=GL 3.4 GPa
In-plane shear modulus of elasticity (T) GZX=GZY=GT 3 GPa
Poisson’s ratio (L) νZX = νZY= νL 0.23-0.28
Poisson’s ratio (T) νXY= νYX= νT 0.09-0.12
Density γ 1600-2100 kg/m3
Fibres percentage in volume Vf 40%-45%
L=longitudinal, T=transversal
Table 1.3. Range of values of pultruded FRP material
In a conventional manner the FRP pultruded standard profile refers to the coordinate system defined
by the XY plane of cross-section and Z axis orthogonal to it, see again Figure 1.1. Fibres run along
the global Z axis of each element defining the anisotropic behaviour in the Z direction and isotropic
in the X and Y directions. The condition of transversal isotropy is defined by the relationships
EX=EY=ET, νXY= νYX= νT, and GXY=GT. The local co-ordinate system for the wall segments forming
the cross-section and webs and flanges is also defined, with the z-direction in the longitudinal
direction of pultrusion, x in the transverse direction and y for the through-thickness direction.
In detail, for the characterization of pultruded FRP material it must be distinguished between two
different products in function of the layering ways. A greater amount of mat increases the
transversal stiffness classifying the FRP with grade 23 (EN 13706), see Table 1.4; while a minor
percentage of mat (i.e. TopGlass standard profiles) favors the increment of longitudinal stiffness
(Table 1.5).
Properties Notation Value

Longitudinal tensile modulus of elasticity Ez = EL 28.5 (GPa)
Transverse tensile modulus of elasticity Ey = E x = ET 8.5 (GPa)
Transverse shear modulus of elasticity Gyx= GL 3.5 (GPa)
In-plane shear modulus of elasticity Gxz = Gyz = GT 2.5 (MPa)
Longitudinal Poisson’s ratio νzx = νzy= νL 0.25
Transversal Poisson’s ratio νxy= νyx= νT 0.12
Bulk weight density γ 1850 (kg/m3)
Longitudinal tensile strength σzt = σLt 350 (MPa)
Transverse tensile strength σxt = σyt = σTt 70 (MPa)
Longitudinal compressive strength σzc = σLc 413 (MPa)
Transverse compressive strength σxc = σyc= σTc 80 (MPa)
Shear strength τxy= τxz = τyz 40 (MPa)
Table 1.4. Mechanical properties of pultruded FRP profiles (Grade E23)

8
Properties Test method Notation Value

Flexural Modulus (L) EN 13706 - 2 (full scale) EL 28 (GPa)
Shear Modulus (L) EN 13706 - 2 (full scale) GL 3 (GPa)
Tensile strength (L) ASTM D638 σtL 400 (MPa)
Tensile strength (T) ASTM D638 σtT 30 (MPa)
Compressive strength (T) ASTM D695 σcL 300 (MPa)
Compressive strength (L) ASTM D695 σcT 70 (MPa)
Flexural strength (L) ASTM D790 σfL 420 (MPa)
Flexural strength (T) ASTM D790 σfT 70 (MPa)
In plane shear strength ASTM D2344 τ 28 (MPa)
Bearing strength (L) ASTM D953 170 (MPa)
Bearing strength (T) ASTM D953 70 (MPa)
Tensile modulus (L) ASTM D638 EtL 29 (GPa)
Tensile modulus (T) ASTM D638 EtT 8 (GPa)
Compressive modulus (L) ASTM D695 EcL 20 (GPa)
Compressive modulus (T) ASTM D695 EcT 7 (GPa)
Poisson's ratio (L) ASTM D638 0.28
Poisson's ratio (T) ASTM D638 0.12
Bulk weight density ASTM D792 γ 1820 (Kg/m3)
Glass content by weight ASTM D2584 60%
Glass content by volume ASTM D2584 42.5%
Thermal conductivity EN 12667/EN 12664 0.3 (W/mK)
Surface resistivity EN 61340 1012(Ω)
Table 1.5. Mechanical properties of pultruded FRP standard profiles (TopGlass)
1.3. Normative, design guidelines and technical references
The static behavior of the FRP material and of FRP structural systems is nowadays studied quiet in-
depth, as demonstrated by the availability of several manuals, handbooks and scientific
publications. Nevertheless, to date a normative reference for the structural design with FRP
materials is not yet available, unless the recent CEN TC250 WG4 which gives finally a depth and
support in this so strategic design field. For what concerns the seismic response of pultruded FRP
elements/structures the researches are still growing. In the following the main normative references,
concerning the material properties, and the main available guidelines and literature references for
the design of FRP structures are listed.
Normative references:
 EN 13706-1:2002 Reinforced plastic composites – Specification for pultruded profiles – Part 1:

Designation

Methods of test and general requirements

Specification requirements
 EN 13121-1:2003 GRP tanks and vessels for use above ground – Part 1: Raw materials –
Specification conditions and acceptance conditions
9
 EN 13121-2:2003 GRP tanks and vessels for use above ground – Part 2: Composite materials –
Chemical resistance
 EN 13121-3:2008 GRP tanks and vessels for use above ground – Part 3: Design and
workmanship
 EN 13121-4:2005 GRP tanks and vessels for use above ground – Part 4: Delivery, installation
and maintenance
 EN-ISO 14125:1998 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of flexural properties
 EN-ISO 14126:1999 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of compressive

properties in the in-plane direction
 EN-ISO 14129:1997 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of the in-plane shear

stress/shear strain response, including the in-plane shear modulus and strength, by the ±45°
tension test method
 EN-ISO 14130:1997 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of apparent interlaminar

shear strength by short-beam method
 EN 16245:2013 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites – Part 1-5: Declaration of raw material

characteristics
 ASTM D 790:2010 Standard test method for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced
plastics and electrical insulating materials
 ASTM D 2344:2006 Standard test method for short beam strength of polymer matrix composite
materials and laminates
 ASTM D 3039:2008 Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite
materials
 ASTM D 3410:2008 Standard test method for compressive properties of polymer matrix
composite materials with unsupported gage section by shear loading
 ASTM D 3518:2007 Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix
composite materials by tensile test of a ±45° laminate
 ASTM D 4255:2007 Standard test method for in-plane shear properties of polymer matrix
composite materials by the rail shear method
Guidelines:
 CEN TC250 WG4L, Ascione, J-F. Caron, P. Godonou, K. van IJselmuijden, J. Knippers, T.
Mottram, M. Oppe, M. Gantriis Sorensen, J. Taby, L. Tromp. Editors: L.Ascione, E. Gutierrez,
S. Dimova, A. Pinto, S. Denton. ‘Prospect for New Guidance in the Design of FRP,’ Support to
the implementation and further development of the Eurocodes, JRC Science and Policy Report
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
 CUR 96 Fibre reinforced polymers in civil load bearing structures (Dutch recommendation,
1996)

10
 EUROCOMP Structural design of polymer composites (Design code and background document,
1996)
 BD90/05 Design of FRP bridges and highway structures (The Highways Agency, Scottish
Executive, Welsh Assembly Government, The Department for Regional Development Northern
Ireland, 2005)
 CNR-DT 205/2007 Guide for the design and construction of structures made of pultruded FRP
elements (Italian National Research Council, 2008)
 ACMA Pre-standard for load and resistance factor design of pultruded fiber polymer structures
(American Composites Manufacturer Association, 2010)
 DIN 13121 Structural polymer components for building and construction (2010)
 ASCE, 1984, Structural Plastics Design Manual, 1984, ASCE Manual No. 63, ASCE, VA.
Books:
 P. K. Mallick, Fiber-reinforced composites, Marcel Dekker Ltd., New York, 1993
 D. Gay et al., Composite materials: design and applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2002
 L. C. Bank, Composites for construction – Structural design with FRP materials, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New Jersey, 2006
 B. D. Agarwal et al., Analysis and performance of fiber composites, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New Jersey, 2006
 Russo, S. Strutture in composito. Sperimentazione, teoria e applicazioni, Hoepli, Milano, 2007.
 Boscato G. (2011). Dynamic behaviour of GFRP pultruded elements. Published by University of

Nova Gorica Press, P.O. Box 301, Vipavska 13, SI-5001 Nova Gorica, Slovenia.
 Pecce, M. and Cosenza, E., ‘FRP structural profiles and shapes, in Wiley. Encyclopedia of
Composites, 2012 - Wiley Online Library.
Dedicated conference series:
 CICE (Composites in Civil Engineering)

 ACIC (Advanced Polymer Composites for Structural Applications in Construction)
 ICCS (International Conference on Composite Structures)
Main dedicated journals:
 Advances in Structural Engineering

 Applied Composite Materials
 Composite Structures
 Composites Part B: Engineering
 Composites Science and Technology
 International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
 Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE
 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites
11
1.4. Constructions and applications with pultruded FRP profiles
The pultrusion process for producing FRP profiles was developed first in 1950s. Although the first
profiles were realized primarily for industrial applications, the potentials related to their adoption as
substitutes for conventional beams and columns in civil engineering applications were always
envisioned. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, in fact, a number of pultrusion companies were
producing I-shaped and tubular profiles.
The first large FRP structures were single-story frames realized for the electromagnetic and
computer industry. The electromagnetic transparency was the key advantage offered by the FRP
pultruded profiles in this field. In 1985 the Composite Technology Inc. designed and realized an
innovative EMI (electromagnetic interference) composite building for Apple Computer. Similar
structures where realized for IBM and others in the 1980s. Another significant use of FRP profiles
is found in the construction of cooling towers. In the bridge engineering field, pultruded FRP
profiles have been widely used since the mid-1970s. Hundreds of FRP footbridges have been
designed and realized all around the world. In 1992 a FRP footbridge 131 m long has been realized
in Aberfeldy, Scotland. A 127 m long FRP footbridge has been realized in 2012 in Floriadebrug,
Netherlands. The first pedestrian bridge (25 m of span length) in Italy has been realized in 2011 in
Prato. Another FRP pedestrian bridge 148 m long is actually under construction in Salerno. FRP
profiles have not been yet widely employed in multi-story residential and commercial buildings.
Neverthless, a significant prototype of a multi-story frame, called Eyecatcher, has been realized by
Fiberline in Basilea, Switzerland, in 1999. To date, the largest FRP strut and tie spatial structure
ever realized is probably represented by the 1,050 m2 by 30 m high FRP temporary shelter located
inside the church of Santa Maria Paganica in L’Aquila, Italy, in order to protect the monument after
the 2009 earthquake. Among other structural types, in 2014 a FRP grid-shell, made with pultruded
tubes, has been realized in Creteil, France. Also a demonstrative composite house has been built in
2012 in Borne, UK. More generally, a depth and updated overview of the all more significant
pultruded FRP structures realized is reported in CEN TC250 WG4L.

12
Besides, it is important to outline that the characteristics of pultruded FRP profiles, such as the
reduced density, the durability and the ease of erection make them particularly suitable for the use
in the field of the reinforcing of RC (reinforced concrete) structures or traditional masonry
structures, with particular regards for historical constructions. The structural reinforcement of these
buildings through the use of pultruded FRP profiles represents an efficient solution that allows
realizing non-invasive, reversible and durable interventions for the improving of the structural
performance with a very limited added structural mass.
Examples are the reinforcement of the timber deck of the Collicola Palace in Spoleto, Italy, through
H-shaped pultruded FRP profiles; the reinforcement of roof of the San Domenico Church in Siena,
Italy; the reinforcement of the Paludo bridge in Venice, Italy, which was necessary due to the
serious deterioration of the iron structure induced by the aggressive environment conditions.
Another example of interaction between FRP structural systems and historical construction is the
realization of an auxiliary floor in the Cogollo house in Vicenza (Figure 1.3), Italy, realized in order
to optimize the available space.

13
Following are illustrated some all-FRP constructions which are new and built in existing sites.
FRP spatial frame, Cogollo house in Vicenza (Italy)
The beams of the spatial frame, illustrated in Figure 1.3, are wide flanges "H" shapes
(200x200x20x10 mm), while the built-up columns are assembled from four off-the-shelf pultruded
leg-angle-shaped sections having same cross-section dimensions (100x100 mm) and wall thickness
of 8 mm. The connection elements (angle) between FRP members, the bolts, and the braces are
made of stainless steel; the circular deck (diameter of 5 m) is made of 5 cm thick multilayer wooden
panels.
Figure 1.3 FRP spatial frame, Cogollo house in Vicenza, Italy, 1999 (measures in meters)

14
FRP auxiliary floor in Verona (Italy)
The auxiliary floor, shown in Figure 1.4, made of pultruded FRP profile, has been built in Verona
(Italy) and is constituted by:
- a double frame that with four and two vertical “I” (200x100x10 mm) FRP profiles supports,
through the steel cables, the auxiliary deck;
- the deck that is realized by coupled “I” FRP profiles that together with individual “I” profiles form
a structural grid; for all joints steel bolts and flanges have been used and the deck is realized by self
bearing panels with a capacity equal to 250 kg/ m2;
- the backstays that are steel cables of 6 mm of diameter.
Figure 1.4 Auxiliary floor, Verona, Italy, 2006 (measures in metres)

15
Structural rehabilitation of an historic pedestrian bridge
The pedestrian “Paludo” bridge is a typical venetian bridge built at the end of XIX century, with
arch static scheme – 12.7 meters for the length and 3.25 meters for the width - built entirely with
iron and wood materials.
The flexural stiffness has been increased substituting the existing longitudinal wood beams with
double "I" shape pultruded FRP profiles (120x60x8 mm) assembled by bolted FRP plates (Figure
1.5). The details of Figure 1.5 show the workers operating facility to execute the cut (a), the holes
(b) and the final assemblage (c), the mechanical connection with the bridge abutments through the
galvanic steel gussets (d), the two “I” FRP profiles and the beam-beam joint realized through the
FRP pultruded plates and stainless bolts (e) and the final positioning in the thickness of the deck (f).
Figure 1.5 Rehabilitation of historic pedestrian bridge, Paludo bridge, Venice, Italy (2007).

16
FRP pedestrian bridge in Prato (Italy)
The pedestrian bridge is fully made with pultruded FRP profiles, except steel bolts. The total length
of the footbridge is equal to 25 meters, with reinforced concrete piers and FRP ramps, see detail of
Figure 1.6; at the edges the access ramps have been designed with a staircase made in FRP and an
elevator. With a load bearing capacity of 5 kN/m² the bridge weighs only 8 tons. With the spatial
truss configuration the top chord is able to resist compression, while the lower chord has to resist
only to tension. The two frame trusses are strongly braced by a lateral system in the plane of its
chord in order to diminish the buckling effective length.
Figure 1.6 Plan, views and details of the spatial strut and tie all-FRP pedestrian bridge, Prato,
Italy (2013)

17
Spatial all-FRP truss structure
The temporary covering-structure of S.M. Paganica church, in L'Aquila, has been made of
pultruded FRP members (Figure 1.7) produced with grade 23 (EN 13706), see Table 1.4. The
structure is still inside the historic church and mentioned in CEN TC250 WG4L (2016). The truss
members are built-up “C” shape members connected with stainless steel bolts.
As shown in Figures 1.7 and 1.8, Structure 1 covers 607 m2 for the nave, having a maximum height
of 22.5 m; Structure 2 covers 266 m2 for the apse, having a maximum height of 29.4 m; Structure 3
(130 m2) protects cells along one longer side; Structure 4 (76 m2) is protecting the entrance-façade.
Figure 1.7 Plan and view of the spatial truss all-FRP structure, L’Aquila, Italy, 2010 (measure
in meters)

18
Figure 1.8 All-FRP sub-structures; L’Aquila (2010)
The frame joints use conventional steel bolts and gusset plates of FRP material made by the bag
molding process, see Figure 1.9. Detail (a) shows the built-up member’s cross-section comprising
four channel (C) profiles having same cross-section dimensions 152x46x9.5mm; while detail (b)
shows the connection between the built-up member’s cross-section of four channel (C) profiles
having same cross-section dimensions 300x100x15mm and bracings.
Figure 1.9 Details of joints of structure 1 (a) and structure 2 (b); L’Aquila (2010)

19
2. SYNTHESIS OF BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS
To facilitate the reading of this manual, in the following a short introduction in the form of sheets to
some aspects and based concepts of seismic design is presented.
1. Single Degree of Freedom (SDoF)
2. Multiple Degrees of Freedom (MDoF)
3. Natural period of vibration
4. Damping coefficient
5. Response spectra
6. Spectral analysis
7. Pushover analysis
8. Dissipative capacity
It is noted that the insights discussed in these short presentations are specific of the analyzes and
studies carried out in this manual. For more clarification, the specific texts present in the literature
and cited in every sheet are the following:
Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, 3rd Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings. EN1998-1:2004 (E),: Formal Vote Version (Stage 49), 2004.
NTC08. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (last update of the Italian Building Code), Decree of the
Ministry of Infrastructures of 14th January 2008. (in Italian).

20
1- Single Degree of Freedom (SDoF)

SDoF (Single Degree of Freedom) system is characterized Dynamic equilibrium
by mass m and a spring with stiffness k (N/m). p(t )  ku(t )  mu(t )  0
The stiffness k is the external force that keeps the system
in equilibrium when a unit displacements u=1 is applied.
mu(t )  frictions inertia force (product of mass time its

acceleration
k (t )  elastic stiffness force
u(t )  acceleration imposed on mass
p(t )  external force
Free vibration
Undamped system Viscously damped system
The structure depends by its static equilibrium. The The linear viscous damper (c) gives a friction in the
system vibrates without any applied forces through the structure. The linear viscous damper develops a force
following equation of motion: proportional to the velocity (fD)
f D  cu(t )
  ku  0
mu
  cu  ku  0
The equation of motion is: mu
Assuming:
damping coefficient  
c
2n m
damped pulsation D  n 1   2
Equation of motion of damped system is:
  2 nu  n2u  0
u
Coulomb-damped system SDoF subjected to seismic action
The Coulomb-damped free vibration is controlled by
sliding of two dry surfaces through friction.
The equation of dynamic equilibrium is:

The friction force is F=Nμ where:
 Fv  Fs  Fm
μ=equal coefficients of static and kinetic friction Where
N=normal force between the sliding surfaces Fv  viscoelastic force proportional to relative velocity
F=independent to velocity of the motion with direction Fs  elastic force proportional to relative displacement
opposed to the motion.
The equations of motion from left to right or viceversa Fm  inertial force proportional to the absolute
are; acceleration ug
mu   ku   F then:
F  cu (t )  ku(t )  m(u
(t )  u
g (t ))
u (t )  A1, 2 cos(nt )  B1, 2 sin(nt ) 
k and finally
(t )  2 u (t )   2u(t )  ug (t ))
The constant A1, B1, A2, B2 depend on the initial u
conditions.

21
2a - Multiple Degrees of Freedom (MDoF)

MDoF (Multi Degrees of Freedom) is characterized by
following equation    
m u c u k u  p(t )
with
[m] mass matrix; [c] damping matrix; [k] stiffness matrix
Mass and stiffness matrices depend on the structure's
discretisation and on the choice of the degrees of freedom
that are involved. The damping cannot be calculated by
discretisation.
For the analysis of multiple-degrees-of-freedom (MDoF) The 36 static degrees of freedom may be reduced to only 3
elastic systems, the development of the code-based lateral degrees of freedom for the dynamic analysis. The
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure (scheme a) and three dynamic d.o.f. are u1, u2 and u3 (see scheme c).
modal superposition analysis must be carried out. The relative displacements not include the ground
In the analysis of MDoF the basic assumptions are: the displacements.
vertical and rotational masses are not required; horizontal The flexibility matrix is simply a column-wise collection of
mass be lumped into the floors; floors are axially rigid; for displaced shapes. The lateral deflection under any loading
each joint (12, scheme b) three d.o.f. (degree of freedom) may be represented as a linear combination of the columns
must be computed (see joint 12, scheme b); motion is in the flexibility matrix (see schemes d, e and f).
predominantly lateral (see joint 4, scheme b).
K may be determined by imposing a unit

displacement at each DOF while restraining
the remaining DOF. The forces required to
hold the structure in the deformed position
are the columns of the stiffness matrix.
The mass matrix is obtained by imposing a
unit acceleration at each DOF while
restraining the other DOF. The columns of
the mass matrix are the (inertial) forces
required to impose the unit acceleration.
There are no inertial forces at the restrained
DOF because they do not move. Load F(t)
and displacement U(t) vary with time.

22
2b - Multiple Degrees of Freedom (MDoF)

For three-story frame MDOF the coupled equations of The equations are solved transforming the coordinates from
motion for undamped forced vibration is: normal coordinates (displacements at each of the three

MU (t )  KU (t )  f (t ) and then: original DOF) to modal coordinates (amplitudes of the
m1 0 0  u1 (t )   k1  k1 0  u1 (t )   f1 (t )  natural mode shapes).
0 m         Through the orthogonality property of the natural mode
 0  u2 (t )   k1 k1  k 2  k 2  u2 (t )   f 2 (t )
2
shapes the equations of motion can be solved by
 0 0 m3   
u3 (t )   0  k3 k2  k3     
u3 (t )   f 3 (t )  simplifying in SDOF equations.
For system in undamped free vibration field the modal shapes and frequencies are expressed by:
MU (t )  KU (t )  0
Where U (t )   sin t and U(t )   2 sin t
Then K   2 M  0 has three solutions

23
2c - Multiple Degree of Freedom (MDoF)

Idealized mode shapes for a 3-story building
The modal shapes depend by boundary conditions;
noteworthy is the relationship between modal
shapes and nodes. The displaced shapes are obtained
by the following linear combination: U  Y
1,1 1, 2 1,3   y1 
  
U  2,1 2, 2 2,3   y 2 
3,1 3, 2 3,3   
 y3 
1,1  1, 2  1,3 
     
U  2,1  y1  2, 2  y2  2,3  y3
     
 3,1   3, 2   3, 3 
Where i, j  modal shape; while y1  modal
coordinate, amplitude of modal shape
The orthogonality condition   123  allows the
full uncoupling of the equations of motion: MDoF equation MU  CU  KU  F (t )
Generalized mass Generalized stiffness With U  Y
m1*  k1* 
Then MY  CY  KY  F (t )
    And T MY  T CY  T KY  T F (t )
 T M   m *
2   T K   k *
2 
 m3*   k 3*  Obtaining the following uncoupled equations of motions
 
m1*   y1  c1*   y1  k1*   y1   f1* (t )
Generalized damping Generalized force           * 
  y2      y 2      y 2    f 2 (t )
* * *
 m 2 c 2 k 2
c1*   f1* (t )  m3   y3  
* 
c3   y 3  
*  * 
k 3   y3   f * (t )
    3 
 
 C  
T
c2*   F   f 2* (t )
T
 *
c3   f * (t )
  3 
*
Dividing by mass m* and defining   ci
Expliciting, with y=amplitude and *=generalized quantities
2mi*i
i
we have: *
mode 1 m1* y1  c1* y1  k1* y1  f1* (t ) mode 1 y  2  y   2 y  f1 (t )
1 1 1 1 1 1 *
m1
*
mode 2 m2* y2  c2* y 2  k2* y2  f 2* (t ) mode 2 y  2  y   2 y  f 2 (t )
2 2 2 2 2 2 *
m2
*
mode 3 m3* y3  c3* y 3  k3* y3  f 3* (t )
mode 3 y  2  y   2 y  f 3 (t )
3 3 3 3 3 3
m3*
MDoF system subjected to earthquake force
For each floor the inertial force Fi is equal to mass times
M the total acceleration (ground acceleration ( ug scalar) The inertial force = sum of two vectors through the
influence coefficient vector R; R=1 for each mass that
and relative acceleration ( ur ,i vector)).
produces an inertial force triggered by horizontal
ug (t )  ur ,1 (t )  acceleration.
 
Fi (t )  M ug (t )  ur , 2 (t )
u (t )  u (t ) 
 g r ,3 

24
2d - Multiple Degree of Freedom (MDoF)

Modal partecipation factor p with 3 first mode shape normalized, x=1
Definition of modal participation factor
For earthquakes
f 2* (t )  iT MRug (t )
Than the typical modal equation is
f i * (t )  T MR
yi  2 ii y i  i2 yi  *
  i * ug (t )
mi mi
With p  i MR  i MR
T T
i Mi
i * T
mi
Effective modal mass for each mode i is

mi  pi2 mi
The modal shape is normalized, x=1
Where: -the sum of effective modal mass
is equal to the structural mass; -the value
of effective mass not depend by mode
shape scaling; - are needed a number of
modes to reach the activation of modal
mass at least of the 90% of the total
structural mass (as defined by standard
codes).
The effective modal mass not depend on
modal scaling as, instead, the modal
participation factor.

25
3 - Natural period of vibration

The natural period of a structure T is the time needed by the structure to perform a whole oscillation, triggered by an
initial perturbation. The natural period of vibration depends by mass (m) and stiffness (k) of structure.
m 0  u1   2k  k  u1  0
 0 m u    k   
2k  u2  0
  2  
A pendulum (SDoF) with a short period of vibration (i.e. stiffer or less mass) tends to move with the support (i.e. soil)
and then not records any earthquake, a pendulum with a greater period of vibration tends to remain stationary while the
support varies.
The natural period of vibration depends by mass (m) and

stiffness (k) of structure.
The natural period of vibration T affects the response of

structure to seismic action both for the acceleration and
displacement. Buildings with different T subjected to same
seismic action record different acceleration values.
Resonance phenomenon:
the soil is also characterized by a natural period of vibration. When the natural period of vibration of the ground is very
close to that of the building, the stress of building increases.
k (rad/sec)

m
Natural circular frequency
1  (Hz)
f  
T 2
Natural frequency
For every structure the natural modes of vibration correspond to the number of degree of freedom and represent the free
periodic oscillations of undamped elastic system.
When the system oscillates according to one of the natural modes, all the masses oscillate with the same pulse
(corresponding to the mode) and the same phase, by keeping unchanged the relationships between the amplitudes.
For each oscillation the masses reach the point of maximum displacement in the same instant.
Adapted from Chopra (2007)

26
Damping coefficient
The equivalent viscous damping coefficient ζ is the most used approach to analyze the dissipative capacity of structures
in dynamic field. ζ depends by effects induced by hysteretic behavior, internal friction of the material, geometrical
characteristics and typology of ground taking into account the structural response in the variation of time.
Free vibration with 10% damping coefficient ζ Free vibration with 3% damping coefficient ζ
Logarithmic decrement method
Band-width method
The logarithmic decrement is an experimental approach
The Half Power Bandwidth (HPB) method in the frequency
that takes into account a linear viscoelastic damping ζ.
range is employed to analyze experimentally the capacity
To evaluate the reduction in the amplitude values that the
of the specimens to dissipate the accumulated energy from
sinusoidal oscillatory behaviour exhibits in the time
the dynamic excitation. The bandwidth (BW) is the
domain, the method used is that of the logarithmic
frequency within a range of 3 dB, corresponding to the
decrement obtained from the ratio between two consecutive
measured dominant (first natural) frequency, f1, from the
maximum amplitudes in the time range of a damped period
action of the piling machine. This quantifies, indirectly, the
of one or more cycles, as in:
velocity from the accelerometer response from initial
1 x
  ln 0 frequency fi to final frequency fi+1; where fi and fi+1 are the
cn xn two frequency limits for calculating BW. Damping
where δ=logarithmic decrement; cn=cycles number; coefficient ζ is given in terms of f1 and BW = (fi+1 - fi,) by
x0=initial amplitude; xn=final amplitude.
The damping coefficient (ζ) is determined through:
BW  f1 1  2 2  2 N  11    
2 2
1  2 2  2 N  11   
2 2
0.5
 4 2  where N = U/U* and U = U* - 3 dB, and U* is the peak
  1  2 
   amplitude at f1. The relationship in Equation between ζ and
BW/f1 holds only for ζ  0.353, and by letting N=21/2 the
Equation can be simplified for small values of ζ i.e., when
expression for the damping coefficient is simplified to
(1- ζ2)0.5 is close to 1, becoming
BW
   
   2 f1
 2 
The representation of the seismic action components is the elastic response spectrum for a conventional damping
coefficient ζ of 5%. It provides the maximum acceleration response of the generic dynamic system with natural period
of T≤4s and is expressed as the product between the spectral shape and the maximum acceleration of the ground.
On the right the deformation response factor and phase angle for a damped system.
For NTC08 and Eurocode8 the equivalent viscous damping
coefficient ζ is taken into account through the damping
correction factor η=√(10/(5+ζ))≥0.55;
This equation vales for ULS (Ultimate Limit State); then
assuming ζ=5% (reinforced concrete RC structure) we have
η=1 (unchanged spectrum); with ζ=2-3% (steel structure)
η=1.2-1.12 (amplified spectrum); while with ζ=0% η=1.41
(amplified spectrum).
In brief passing from RC to steel structure increase the
horizontal components of the design response spectrum which
tend to maximize for ζ=0, that is for a elastic structure and,
therefore, extremely rigid with respect to a dissipative structure.

27
5a - Response spectra
SDoF Systems EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE
SDoF system is subjected to ground motion ug(t); u(t)is fs(t)is the static force which must be applied to create the
the calculated displacement response. displacement u(t)
RESPONSE SPECTRA
A response spectrum is a plot of a
maximum response, in
displacement or velocity or
acceleration form, of a SDoF
system with respect to a given
ground acceleration against
systems parameters (Tn (natural
period of vibration) and ζ
(damping coefficient)).
A response spectrum is calculated
numerically (through Duhamel
integral or time integration
methods) for (Tn and ζ).
Adapted from Chopra (2007)
DETERMINATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA
Starting from the seismic action for specific soil
g (t ) :
characterized by u
g (t ) to SDoF system with Tn and fixed
-I apply u
damping coefficient ζ;
-I solve the problem calculating u(t) and plotting the
graph ω2u(t)in time domain;
-I calculate the maximum value of
spectral displacements SDe={u(t)}max
spectral pseudo-velocity SVe=ω{u(t)}max
spectral pseudo-acceleration SVe=ω2{u(t)}max
Following the relationship:
S De  u t 
1

max
S Ae
2
For a given seismic action the D-V-A
(Displacement, pseudo-Velocity, pseudo-
Acceleration) elastic response spectra summarizes
the behavior in term of maximum D-V-A of all
elastic SDoF system with 0<Tn<  and fixed
damping coefficient. Combined D-V-A response spectrum for El-Centro ground motion
In detail pseudo-velocity is related to energy while with ζ=0, 2, 5, 10 and 20%, (Chopra 2007).
pseudo-acceleration is proportional to static load.

28
5b - Response spectra
The elastic response spectrum is obtained by many seismic events, and it isn't refered to the real earthquake.
The spectrum which characterizes the site is obtained as the envelope of the most response spectra.
The development of response spectra for a specific site requires a study of geological and seismological characteristics
of the site. It is known that the characteristics of seismic action are affected by the source that triggers the earthquake,
from the wave's directions up to the site and by local conditions.
For the equivalent static force Fsmax
The seismic analysis becomes the equivalent static

analysis.
Response spectrum (ζ =0, 2, 5 and 10%) and peak values

of ground acceleration (A), ground velocity (V) and
ground displacements (D) for i.e. El Centro ground
For a SDOF:
motion, (Chopra 2007).
The elastic design spectrum is defined through the

accelerograms recorded during past earthquakes with
similar seismic characteristics.
Construction of elastic design spectrum (Chopra 2007)

Response to El Centro earthquake (i.e.) of different Response to El Centro earthquake (i.e.) of different
buildings changing T0 and ζ fixed: buildings changing T0 and ζ:
-with higher T0 (→∞) the maximum pseudo-acceleration -the maximum displacements tend to grow with increasing
→0; the natural period (T0)
-with lower T0 (→0) the maximum pseudo-acceleration -the maximum displacements decrease with increasing
→maximum ground acceleration. damping coefficient (ζ)

29
6a- Spectral analysis

The seismic loading for structural design is described by response spectra (Eurocode 8, 2004; NTC08, 2008). Design
that is in accordance with the requirements of Eurocode 8 has only ULS spectra. Working to the Italian Building Code
(NTC08 2008] requires there to be both SLS and ULS spectra.
Structures in seismic regions shall be designed and constructed taking into account the reference seismic action
associate with a reference probability of exceedance or a reference return period.
For NTC08 the seismic action depends by VR=CUxVN (where VN=service life while CU=structural class).
The period return TR= VR/(ln(1-PVr) where PVr=probability of exceedance that changes in function of the different
damage levels (SLO=operational; SLD=immediate occupancy; SLV=life safety; SLC=collapse prevention).
For EC08 the recommended values for the no-collapse requirement are PNCR=10% (probability of excedeence) and
TNCR=475 years (return period) while for the damage limitation requirement are P DLR=10% (probability of excedeence)
and TDLR=95 years (return period).
Eurocode 8, 2004 and NTC08, 2008 shall be take into account for basic informations about ground conditions, seismic
actions and general parameters.
Elastic Response Spectra

The reference action model to describe the seismic motion at floor (ground) level is the elastic response spectra for
horizontal and vertical components. In this sheet the notation, the design process and equations are, where applicable,
in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of Eurocode 8 (2004). Euroocde 8 sesimic loading is more severe than
the Italian seismic loading the approach is for a conservative and pragmatic design.
The two elastic response spectra for horizontal and vertical components were established from the normalised spectrum
in Eurocode 8 with reference to an assumed viscous damping coefficient (ζ) of 0.05, which is independent of the
seismicity level. EN 1998-1-1:2004 states that these elastic response spectra may be applied to structures having a
vibration period < 4 s. This criterion is acceptable for FRP structure.
Equations in the right are used to present the four stages of
the elastic response spectrum for the horizontal
component.
The parameters in Eqs. (a) to (d) are: Se(T) for the elastic
horizontal ground acceleration response spectrum (also
called "elastic response spectrum”) with units of Elastic response spectrum for the horizontal component
acceleration (g); T for the vibration period of a linear Se(T) used in Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08 (2008).
oscillator, namely Single Degree of Freedom (SDoF),
defined by its natural period and by its damping factor; S
for the soil factor; η for a damping correction factor, which
is calculated from   10 / 5   100  0.55 ; TB, TC and
TD are for time periods, depending on type of ground, to
define the different stages in the spectrum; Fo (NTC08
2008) is for the horizontal amplification factor. Note that
Fo is the notation taken from publication NTC08, an
alternative notation in Eurocode 8 is Fh, where the
subscript ‘h’ is for horizontal component.
At T = 0 s, the spectral acceleration given by Se(T) equals
the design ground acceleration on type A ground multiplied
by the soil factor S.

30
6b- Spectral analysis

Elastic response spectrum for the vertical component Sve(T)
The elastic response spectrum for the vertical ground used in Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08 (2008).
acceleration (Sve(T)) is defined by the four expressions in
the right Table. In Equs. (a) to (d) the new parameters
respect to horizontal component are: avg for the design
ground acceleration in the vertical direction that is given by
0.9 ag and Fv for the vertical amplification factor that is
given by 1.35Fh(avg/g)0.5.
The horizontal component of acceleration is always higher than in the vertical direction. It can be seen that the elastic
response spectra from Eurocode 8 are significantly higher, and have different time differentials, than those obtained on
using NCT08.
Design spectra for ULS design
For the purpose of seismic design the dissipation capacity of any structure can be taken into consideration by
introducing a reduction factor to the elastic spectral accelerations. This is accomplished in Eurocode 8 (2004) and in
Italian Building Code (NCT08, 2008) by introducing q.
To ensure the structural design for the structure could be conservative, and when the material plasticity is minimal, the
factor q was set to be 1.0. In other words there was no reduction in the spectrum’s accelerations for the structural
analysis to establish the seismic performance.
Displacement response spectra
To gain an insight into how much horizontal displacement the structure is to experience due to ground movement the
displacement response spectrum, SDe(T), is obtained from the acceleration response spectrum (Se(T)), by using the
2
relationship: S De (T )  S e (T )   T 
 2 

31
7 - Pushover analysis
In performance-based engineering it is necessary to obtain realistic estimates of inelastic deformations in structures so
that these deformations may be checked against deformation limits as established in the appropriate performance
criteria. Two basic methods are available for determining these inelastic deformations: Nonlinear static “pushover”
analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic Response History analysis.
In the non linear static analysis method a structure is subjected to gravity loading and a displacement-controlled
lateral load pattern which continuously increases through elastic and inelastic behavior until an ultimate condition is
reached. Lateral load may represent the range of base shear induced by earthquake loading.
Different types of non linear behaviour exist: mechanical (connected to the non linearity of the material), geometrical
(connected to the fact that the application point of the loads changes increasing the actions) and of beam-column
joints (connected to the interaction of structural elements).
The pushover analysis is based on: 1-Definition of capacity curve of MDoF system; 2-Definition of equivalent SDoF
system; 3-Calculation of capacity displacement (umax); 4-Calculation of displacement demand (dmax); 5-Comparison
between umax and dmax; 6-Validation when umax >dmax (see figure below).
The capacity curve= relationship between the horizontal displacement and horizontal force.
The demand curve is basically an elastic response spectrum that has been modified for expected performance and
equivalent viscous damping. The demand curve is used in concert with the capacity curve to predict the target
displacement.
The expected displacement is determined locating on the capacity curve the displacement compatible with the seismic
action of the site. The identification of this displacement is pursued by operating in Acceleration Displacement
Response Spectrum (ADRS), and then describing the capacity curve and the response spectrum in terms of spectral
acceleration and spectral displacement. In the space ADRS the response spectrum and capacity curve should
respectively take the name of the Demand spectrum and Capacity spectrum capacity.
The different forms of horizontal actions are:
a)Uniform load proportional to the mass distribution
b)Triangular load proportional to the mass distribution
c)Horizontal load proportional to the lateral force distribution of the mode with the highest mass participation
‘‘Modal’’.
The P-Δ effect must be taken into account. The P-Δ effect is a destabilizing moment equal to the force of gravity
multiplied by the horizontal displacement a structure undergoes when loaded laterally.

32
8a – Dissipative capacity
For the seismic design the dissipation capacity of any structure can be taken into consideration by introducing a
reduction factor to the elastic spectral accelerations. This is accomplished in standard codes by the behaviour factor q.
The design seismic action Sd(T) is given by the elastic response spectra with the elastic accelerations (forces) adjusted
downward by dividing by q. The determination of the q depends on the: materials; structural form; hyperstaticity degree
of structure; structural response (e.g. its ductility); soil-structure interaction. To ensure the structural design for the
structure could be conservative the factor q =1.0. In other words there was no reduction in the spectrum’s accelerations
in the elastic response spectrum for the structural analysis to establish the seismic performance.
The q factor is determined through kinematic or energetic equivalence conditions.
Kinematic equivalence for structure with higher period of Energetic equivalence for structure with short period of
vibration vibration
Fe umax Fe ue u
q   q   1  2  max  2
Fy uy Fy u y uy
q 2  1  2    q  2    1
Hence, considering the previous criteria

q    ifT  0.5s
q 2    1  if 0.1s  T  0.5s
q  1  ifT  0.1s
Generalizing the SDoF, the q of MDoF could be evaluated through the relationship between the different peek ground
acceleration (PGA) of collapse and yielding state: q  PGAu
PGAy
or through the pushover analysis considering the static forces equivalent to seismic actions:

q u
y
Elastic response spectra in SLS for horizontal and vertical Design response spectrum for ULS structural analysis
components based on Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08 (2008). based on using Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08 (2008).

33
8b - Dissipative capacity
The displacement response spectrum, SDe(T), is obtained

from the acceleration response spectrum (Se(T)).
This is valid for a vibration period T< 4.5s (4.5 s is time
parameter TE for a type A ground). The acceleration
response spectra and the displacement response spectra
have three time zones that are proportional to the imposed
ground acceleration. Between times TB and TC there is a
zone of constant spectral acceleration. This is followed to
time TD by the zone of constant spectral velocity and for
higher times to TE there is the zone of constant
displacement response too.
Horizontal displacement response spectra based on
Eurocode 8 and NTC08 for SLS and ULS design.
The dashed lines show the displacements calculated with NTC08 and EC8 considering q=1. In the same the elastic
displacement response spectra is calculated considering q=1.5. Figure shows that the structure responds to design
seismic action resisting to a maximum displacement of 116mm for EC8 and 124mm for NTC8. The effect of the
behaviour factor is shown through the reduction of the displacements induced by design seismic action.
For the seismic spectral analysis the response-spectrum analysis (RSA) has been carried out. It is a linear-dynamic
statistical analysis method which measures the contribution from each natural mode of vibration to indicate the likely
maximum seismic response of an essentially elastic structure. Response-spectrum analysis provides insight into
dynamic behavior by measuring pseudo-spectral acceleration, velocity, or displacement as a function of structural
period for a given time history and level of damping. It is practical to envelope response spectra such that a smooth
curve represents the peak response for each realization of structural period. Response-spectrum analysis is useful for
design decision-making because it relates structural type-selection to dynamic performance. Structures of shorter period
experience greater acceleration, whereas those of longer period experience greater displacement.

34
3. EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION
A numerical example relative to the design and verification of a pultruded frame subjected to static
and seismic actions is illustrated (see Figure 3.1). The procedure will be the same also in presence
of different structures as simple frame, multistory frame or irregular structure all made by beam-
column connections or, again, for local reinforcement using pultruded FRP systems.
Figure 3.1 View of structure (dimensions in meters).

In this first part of the chapter, the characteristics of the structure are described and general
indications are given about the seismic behavior and design of pultruded frames.
In the second part of the chapter, Load analysis (p. 42), the static and seismic loads acting on the
structure are evaluated. The seismic response of the building is evaluated first through a spectral
response analysis and then through a pushover analysis.
The third part of the chapter, from page 55, describes some structural verifications of the single
members at the ultimate (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS). In addition, a verification of a
bolted joint is carried out, considering the different failure mechanisms.

35
In particular, for what concerns the ULS and SLS, the following verifications are considered (Table
3.1):
Ultimate Limit State, ULS Serviceability Limit State, SLS

Example of verification of a p. 59 Stresses p. 76
compressed member Deformations p. 77
Table 3.1 Chapters of ULS and SLS verifications
For what concerns the verifications of joints the following verifications are considered (Table 3.2):
Joint's verification
Net-tension failure of the plate p. 82
Shear-out failure of the plate p. 82
Bearing failure of the plate p. 83
Shear failure of the steel bolt p. 85
Table 3.2 Chapters of joint verifications
On the base of the verifications results some considerations about the structural performance of
pultruded members are then provided. Finally, the possible strategies are described for enhancing
the seismic stability of the structures.
3.1. Statement of the structural design
The structure of Figure 3.1 has been designed in accordance with the Italian building code (NTC08)
and Eurocode. Individual components (frames, members, connections and bolted joints) and the
whole structure have been analyzed with respect to Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and Serviceability
Limit States (SLS). The adopted design method takes into account the load combinations of wind,
snow and earthquake. Seismic loading was based on seismic zoning in accordance with the Italian
Building Code NTC08 (2008).
The structure has been designed for a design working life VN≥50 years (see also Eurocode1
category C and NTC08 type 2 class III).
The referred life’s period VR is so assumed equal to 75 years by the product between VN and CU
(class of use) =1.5.
The parameters to identify the structures are the fundamental period of vibration T1 and the beam-
column stiffness ratio ρ, equation 3.1(Chopra 2007):

36
EJ b
 beams
Lb
 (3.1)
EJ
 columns L c
c
with the flexural stiffness of beam (EJb) and column (EJc) compared to Lb (lengths of beam) and Lc
(lengths of column) indicated in Figure 3.2.
The different ρ value affects the fundamental period and the modal shapes. The relative closeness or
separation between the natural periods and the corresponding participation mass evidences the
global or local structural response.
The deflected shapes in function of ρ values are indicated in Figure 3.2:
ρ=0 0<ρ<∞ ρ=∞

Figure 3.2 Deflected shapes with different ρ; (Chopra 2007)
With ρ=0 the frame is not restrained on joint rotations, then the behaviour of the frame is affected
by the flexural response of the beams. When 0<ρ<∞ (semi-rigid joints) beams and columns are
subjected to bending deformation with joint rotations. With ρ=∞ (rigid joints) the joint rotation is
completely restrained.
In general, the connections between pultruded structural members can be realized through bolted or
bonded joints or a combination of the two.
All-FRP structures should be designed also evaluating local and global buckling and their designing
in function of the lower value.
As reported in EN 1998-1, §6.7.1, the concentric braced frames should be designed so that the
strength hierarchy criteria are activated.

37
The structure should exhibit similar global load-deflection characteristics at each story in opposite
senses of the same braced direction under load reversals. For this reason the diagonal elements of
bracings should be placed as shown in Figure 3.3 (see Figure 6.12 of EN 1998-1).
Figure 3.3 Figure 6.12 of EN 1998-1.
To this end, the equation 3.2 should be met at every story in order to concentrate the axial load in
the bracings unloading the much as possible columns and beams.
A  A
 
 0.05 (3.2)
A A
where A+ is the area of the horizontal projection of the cross-section of tension diagonals with
positive seismic action; A- is the area of the horizontal projection of the cross-section of tension
diagonals with negative seismic action.
The effects of connections deformations on global drift must be taken into account using pushover
global analysis or non-linear time history analysis, see Sheet 8 and Priestley et al. (2007).
As suggested by EN 1998-1:2004 the dissipative semi-rigid and/or partial strength connections are
permitted if: 1-the connections have a rotation capacity consistent with the global deformations; 2-
members framing into the connections are demonstrated to be stable at ULS; 3-the effect of
connection deformation on global drift is taken into account using non-linear global analysis or non-
linear time history analysis.

38
3.2. Materials
Table 3.3 shows the mechanical properties for the pultruded profiles with vinylester based matrix
reinforced by E-glass fibre.
Mechanical properties Symbol Mean value

Longitudinal tensile strength σZ = σLt 400 MPa
Longitudinal compressive strength σZc = σLc 220 MPa
Transversal tensile strength σXt = σYt = σTt 70 MPa
Shear strength τXY= τXZ = τYZ 40 MPa
Longitudinal elastic modulus EZ= EL 23 GPa
Transversal elastic modulus EX = EY=ET 7 GPa
Shear modulus GXY=GL 4.5 GPa
Shear modulus GZX =GZY=GT 4.5 GPa
Poisson’s ratio νZX = νZY= νL 0.3
Poisson’s ratio νXY= νT 0.3
Bulk weight density of FRP γ 1850 kg/m3
Volume fraction of E-glass fibre Vf 48%
Table 3.3 Mechanical and physical characteristics of pultruded FRP material, mean
value
To assemble the whole FRP structure the use of stainless steel bolts will be suggested. For the
frame joints the bolting is M14 class 8.8, UNI5737.
The bolt clearance hole should be constant at 1.0 mm. The M14 bolts should be tightened to a
torque where the effects will be less than the transversal tensile strength. From the torque moment
M it is possible to detect the axial load N through the Equation 3.3.
M
N (3.3)
 d
where d is equal to the diameter of the bolt while ς is a coefficient friction (ς = 0.14 to 0.22,
Mottram et al. 2004). Bolts should be partially threaded (at least for half length of bolt) to minimise
any local damage from thread embedment into the FRP materials.

39
3.3. Basic assumptions
The structure has been designed taking into account the following basic assumptions:
- full fixed restraint at column-base
- rigid diaphragm as horizontal partition
- for the material of bracing the constitutive law of Figure 3.4a has been considered that takes into
account the partial cross section area due to presence of holes for bolted connection. The
normalized constitutive law and the idealized curve for FEM analysis are reported in Figure 3.4b.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.4 Experimental and normalized constitutive law for the bracing elements
- for the beam-column joints the constitutive law of Figure 3.5 has been assumed. The moment-
rotation relationship (Figure 3.5a) has been extracted by experimental tests carried out in the
Laboratory of Strenght of Materials of IUAV Univesity of Venice, Italy (Feroldi and Russo 2016).
The normalized constitutive law and the idealized curve for FEM analysis are reported in Figure
3.5b; other constitutive laws can be deduced by Turvey and Cooper (2004).
(a) (b)
Figure 3.5 Experimental and normalized Moment-Rotation relationship

40
3.4. Load analysis
For the ultimate and serviceability limit states, ULS and SLS respectively, the combinations of
actions are listed in Table 3.4
fundamental combination in ULS  G1  G1   G 2  G2   Q1  Qk1   Q 2  02  Qk 2   Q3  03  Qk 3  ...

characteristic combination in SLS G1  G2  Qk1   02  Qk 2   03  Qk 3  ...
frequent combination in SLS G1  G2   11  Qk1   22  Qk 2   23  Qk 3  ...
quasi-permanent combination in
G1  G2   21  Qk1   22  Qk 2   23  Qk 3  ...
SLS
seismic combination in ULS E  G1  G2   21  Qk1   22  Qk 2  ...
Table 3.4 Combination of actions
where G1 and G2 are the dead loads of the structural and non structural elements respectively, Q is
the accidental load and E is the seismic action.
The recommended values of ψ factors for buildings (Table 3.5) are extracted by Table A1.1 for
Eurocode 1 and Table 2.5.1 for NTC08.
Action/Category Ψ0j Ψ1j Ψ2j

Category C: congregation areas 0.7 0.7 0.6
Snow load on building for sites located at altitude H≤1000 m a.s.l. 0.5 0.2 0
Wind loads on buildings 0.6 0.2 0
Table 3.5 Recommended values for ψ coefficients
For the ULS the design values of actions are shown in Table 3.6, see Tables A1.2(B) and A1.2(C)
for Eurocode 1 and Table 2.6.1 for NTC08
Loads/Actions γF
Permanent γG1 1.3, 1.5
Permanent γG2 1.5
Variable γG2 1.5
Table 3.6 Unfavourable condition of design values of actions
3.4.1. Permanent loads
The total self-weight of structural and non-structural members should be taken into account in the
combinations of actions as a single action.
The scheme of the structure is indicated in Figure 3.6. Along X and Y-direction the frames 1-2-3-4
and A-B are shown, respectively. The horizontal bracing in the plan scheme of Figure 3.6 is
repeated for every floor. The details of cross sections of pultruded members of the structure (Figure
3.1) are shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7, while Table 3.7 lists the main geometric characteristics.

41
Figure 3.6 Details of members for every floor and frame (meters)
Figure 3.7 Geometric characteristics of cross section members (millimetres)
Second Second Torsional second

Shear area Shear area
Area moment of moment of moment of
Section name for Imax for Imin
inertia Imax inertia Imin inertia
mm2 mm4 mm4 mm4 mm2 mm2
2U-152x43x9.3 4080.84 11834397 1975906 108225.2 2827.2 1599.6
2U-200x60x10 6000 31400000 4687500 187400 4000 2400
2U-300x100x15 14100 1.71E+08 26811875 993712.5 9000 6000
4U-152x43x9.3 8162 31829200 13809900 232400 7112 3196
L-75x6.5 932.75 503065.6 503065.6 12698.89 487.5 487.5
P-75x9.5 712.52 334004.9 5359.02 16303.56 712.5 180.52
Table 3.7 Characteristics of pultruded FRP members
42
A composite cross section constituted by pultruded panels and concrete slab has been considered in
addition to G1 for every floor and the roof. In detail, the pultruded panels have a self-weight of
0.5kN/m2 with a thickness of 80mm, while the concrete slab is 100 mm thick, see Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Detail of deck (millimetres)

The permanent load G1 weighing on beams with maximum span for every floor and on the beam of
the roof is shown in Figure 3.9, for the references about the frames see Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.9 Permanent load G1 (N/mm)

G2 is characterized by non-structural permanent load as infill vertical panels, internal partitions and
layer of pavement, see Figure 3.10; for the references of the frames see Figure 3.6.
In detail, the load of non-structural layer of pavement and internal partitions is equal to 3.8 kN/m2
while the load of perimetral infill vertical panel is 0.5 kN/m2.

43
Figure 3.10 Non-structural permanent load G2 (N/mm)
3.4.2. Variable loads
The variable action Q on building floor is 4 kN/m2, weighing on beams with maximum span (see
Figure 3.1) as shown in Figure 3.11; for the references about the frames see Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.11 Variable actions Q load (N/mm)

The wind action has been evaluated considering the characteristics of the Zone 3 in NTC08 (Table
3.3.I of §3.3). The fundamental value of the basic wind velocity, vb,0, is obtained by the following
relationship:
vb  vb,0  ka (as  a0 ) for a0<as<1500m
m
vb  27  0.02  (783  500)  32.66
sec
where vb,0, a0, ka, are parameters listed in Table 3.3.I of §3.3 of NTC08 while as is the altitude
above the sea level. The velocity pressure p is given by:
44
p  qb  ce  c p  cd
with ce=exposure factor, cp=shape parameter, cd=dynamic coefficient=1, while the basic velocity
pressure qb is calculated through
1
qb     vb2
2
where ρ is the air density equal to 1.25kg/m3, then
1 N
qb   1.25  (32.66) 2  666.67 2
2 m
for the exposure factor ce the following relationship must be applied
 z   z 
Ce ( z )  k r2  Ct  ln    7  Ct  ln  
 z0    z 0 
where for the category III kr, z0 and z are listed in Table 3.3.II of NTC08 while Ct is equal to
topographic coefficient =1 , hence:
 15.4    15.4 
Ce ( z )  0.2  1  ln    7  1  ln    2.42
2
 0.1    0.1 
For the shape parameter, cp, the net pressure is the difference between the pressures on the opposite
surfaces that in this specific case is cp = 1.2. Finally, the velocity pressure p is detailed in Figure
3.12.

45
Figure 3.12 Wind actions in X and Y-direction, force in N
The snow load, as defined by NTC08 and EC1, is shown in the following relationship.
qs  1  qsk  CE  Ct
Where qs (S, for EC1) = snow load, µi = shape coefficient, CE = exposure coefficient, Ct =
thermal coefficient and qsk (Sk = permanent and SAd = variable, for EC1) = characteristic value. The
different parameters are listed in Table 3.8. Figure 3.13 shows the snow load applied to structure;
for the references of the frames see Figure 3.6.
µi CE Ct qsk (Sk=permanent, for EC1) qsk (SAd=variable, for EC1)

  A 2 
S k  (0.498  0.209) 1    
  452   kN
EC1 0.8 1.1 1 S Ad  Cesl  S k  2  3.148  6.296
  783  2  kN m2
(0.498  0.209) 1      3.15 2
  452   m
  as  2  kN
NTC08 0.8 1.2 1 qsk  0.51  1      1.86 2 (with as=783)
  481   m
Table 3.8 Coefficients for snow load
Figure 3.13 Snow load (N/mm)

46
3.4.3. Seismic analysis
A dynamic analysis has been carried in the following taking into account the modal analysis,
spectral analysis and non linear static analysis.
3.4.3.1. Modal analysis
The modal analysis, associated with the design response spectrum, can be performed on three-
dimensional structures in order to obtain a reliable structural response.
This is a linear dynamic-response procedure which evaluates and superimposes free-vibration mode
shapes to characterize displacement patterns. Mode shapes describe the configurations into which a
structure will naturally displace in the dynamic field.
Typically, lateral displacement patterns are of primary concern. The analysis can be considered
reliable as it reaches the mass participant >85% (§7.3.3.1 of NTC08), see Table 3.9. In detail in
Table 3.9 the letter U sets the direction along the respective axis while R indicates the rotation about
the correspondent axis. Sum for every direction and rotation is the progressive sum of the
participating mass (PM). Figure 3.14 shows the modal shapes and related dynamic parameters.
StepNum Period (secs) UX UY UZ SumUX SumUY SumUZ RX RY RZ SumRX SumRY SumRZ

1 0.67 0% 88% 0% 0% 88% 0% 99% 0% 8% 99% 0% 8%
2 0.60 89% 0% 0% 89% 88% 0% 0% 100% 80% 99% 100% 88%
3 0.19 0% 11% 0% 89% 98% 0% 0% 0% 1% 99% 100% 89%
4 0.17 10% 0% 0% 99% 98% 0% 0% 0% 9% 99% 100% 98%
5 0.12 0% 1% 0% 99% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 98%
6 0.11 1% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1% 99% 100% 99%
7 0.09 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 99%
8 0.08 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 99%
9 0.07 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1% 99% 100% 100%
10 0.05 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 100%
11 0.05 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 100%
12 0.05 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 100% 100%
13 0.03 0% 0% 86% 100% 100% 86% 1% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
14 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 86% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
15 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 86% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
16 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 86% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
17 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 86% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
18 0.02 0% 0% 1% 100% 100% 87% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
19 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 87% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
20 0.02 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 87% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
Table 3.9 Period of vibration (secs) and participation mass respect to X, Y and Z axes.

47
Figure 3.14 Modal analysis, deformed shapes in black color and undeformed shapes in
gray color
3.4.3.2. Spectral analysis
The seismic loading for structural design is realized through response spectra, see Sheet 5,
Eurocode 8, 2004 and NTC08, 2008. Design that is in accordance with the requirements of
Eurocode 8 has only ULS spectra. Working to the Italian Building Code (NTC08 2008) requires
there to be both SLS and ULS spectra.

48
Based on a 10% probability of exceedance over a reference period of 50 years in the Italian seismic
zone 1 (NTC05 2005), and in accordance with Eurocode 8 (2004), the design ground acceleration
on type A ground, ag, can be taken to be 0.35g. Note that by applying the specific seismic zoning
requirements in NTC08 (2008) the designer will have different ground accelerations for the SLS
and ULS design response spectra, which are defined to account for the different reference periods of
50 and 712 years. Type A ground is a stiff soil (Eurocode 8, 2004; NTC08, 2008) characterized by
rock or other rock-like geological formation, including at most 3 m from using NTC08 (2008) or 5
m from using Eurocode 8 (2004), of weaker material below the surface possessing a shear wave
velocity (vs) in excess of > 800 m/s.
3.4.3.2.1. Elastic response spectrum
The Eurocode 8 spectra are compared with the spectra obtained using the specific design parameters
for considered zone, which are taken from the Italian Building Code (NTC08 2008).
For the structure in exam the parameter values listed in Table 3.10 are used to specify this
horizontal spectrum (for type A ground conditions) with the damping coefficient ζ set to 0.05. The
parameters from using Eurocode 8 are presented in column (2) and the SLS and ULS parameters
from using NTC08 (2008) are given in columns (4) and (5), respectively. Comparing the rows in
columns (2) and (5) shows the differences in the parameters for Eqs. (a) to (d) of Sheets 6 and 7
between the two standards. Euroocde 8 seismic loading is more severe than the Italian seismic
loading. Parameters for the vertical spectrum are listed in column (3) of Table 3.10 for Eurocode 8
(2004) and in columns (6) and (7) for NTC08 (2008).
Eurocode 8 NTC08
Components
Parameters
Horizontal Vertical
Horizontal Vertical
SLS ULS SLS ULS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
ag (g) 0.35 - 0.125 0.3 - -
avg (g) - 0.9 ag - - 0.06 0.222
Fh 2.5 - 2.316 2.384 - -
Fv - 3 - - 1.105 1.762
S 1 1 1 1 1
η 1 1 1 1 1
TB (s) 0.15 0.05 0.097 0.119 0.05
TC (s) 0.4 0.15 0.29 0.356 0.15
TD (s) 2 1 2.1 2.799 1
Note: - is for not applicable.
Table 3.10 Spectra parameters (Eurocode 8, 2004, NTC08, 2008)

49
Plotted in Figure 3.15a are the two elastic spectra at SLS for the horizontal Se(T) and vertical Sve(T)
acceleration components for NCT08 and Eurocode 8. Three distinct stages in the seismic response
are established by the time parameters TB, TC, and TD with Eqs. (a) to (d) in Sheets 6 and 7.
3.4.3.2.2. Design spectra for ULS design
The design seismic action Sd(T) is given by the elastic response spectra with the elastic
accelerations (forces) adjusted downward by dividing by q, Sheet 8.
One outcome on making this is that, because η = 1/q, the parameter η becomes 0.67 (i.e.
damping coefficient  is assumed to be 0.05). With the modelling assumption that q = 1.5, the
Eurocode 8 spectra for the horizontal and vertical components remain defined by the four
expressions in Sheet 6, respectively, with parameters Fo and Fv reduced by q = 1.5.
Figure 3.15b presents the design spectra for ULS design from Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08
(2008), using the same plot construction as in Figure 3.15a and the parameters given in Table 3.10
(see Sheets 6, 7 and 8). It is observed that there has been no change in the Eurocode 8 spectra
between Figures 3.15a and 3.15b, while the NCT08 spectra curves of NTC08-horizontal and
NTC08-vertical in Figure 3.15b have much higher values than in Figure 3.15a.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.15 Elastic response spectra in SLS (a) and design response spectra for ULS (b)
3.4.3.2.3. Displacement response spectra
The displacement response spectra SDe through equation of Sheet 6 for the horizontal component
(defined by Eqs. (a) to (d) in Sheet 6) gives a direct transformation that is valid for a vibration
period T, that is not > 4.5 s (4.5 s is time parameter TE for a type A ground). Plotted in Figure 3.16
is SDe using Eq. in Sheet 6 for the Eurocode 8 (EC8-horizontal) and for the NCT08 (NTC08-
horizontal).

50
The elastic displacement response spectrum of horizontal components of seismic actions is

extracted by acceleration response of Figure 3.15b. The dashed lines of Figure 3.16 show the
displacements calculated with NTC08 and EC8 considering q=1. In the same figure the elastic
displacement response spectra have been calculated considering q=1.5. Figure 3.16 shows that the
structure responds to the design seismic action resisting to a maximum displacement of 116mm for
EC8 and 124mm for NTC8. Also the effect of the behaviour factor is shown through the reduction
of the displacements (see Sheet 8).
Figure 3.16 Horizontal displacement response spectra

In the seismic combination at ultimate limit state the horizontal (X and Y) and vertical components
(Z) that have been considered are NTC08-horizontal_q=1.5 and NTC08-vertical_q=1.5
respectively, of Figure 3.15, through the combinations shown in Table 3.11 (NTC08, §7.3.5 and EN
1998-1-1:2004); the Z combination can be ignored if not necessary.
X direction Y direction Z direction

1Ex  0.3E y  0.3Ez 0.3Ex  1E y  0.3Ez 0.3Ex  0.3E y  1Ez
Table 3.11 Combination of the horizontal (X and Y) and vertical components (Z)
In the spectral analysis all the vibration modes with a participating mass bigger than 5% should be
considered summing up a number of modes so that the total participating mass is larger than 85%
(§7.3.3.1 of NTC08). In order to calculate stresses and displacements in the structure, the complete
quadratic combination CQC rule may be used.
Through the spectral analysis the maximum displacements in x and y direction, taking into account
the previous combinations, are shown in Figure 3.17 where deformed shapes are in red and
undeformed in gray. The assumed limitation of inter-story drift is < 0.01h with h=height of inter-

51
story (§4.4.3.2 in EC8). For both seismic directions the analysis is satisfied, 42.2 mm < 46 mm (x
direction) and 15.9 mm < 46 mm (y direction).
Seismic action in x direction, maximum inter-story drift = 42.2 mm
Seismic action in y direction, maximum inter-story drift = 15.9 mm
Figure 3.17 Maximum displacements (Spectral analysis)
3.4.3.3. Pushover analysis
Two different horizontal actions have been studied as suggested in the chapter §4.3.3.4.2.2 of
Eurocode 8:
i) horizontal load proportional to the mass distribution (denoted as ‘‘Mass’’),
52
ii) horizontal load proportional to the lateral force distribution of the mode with the highest mass
participation (denoted as ‘‘Modal’’).
The seismic design codes (EC8 and NTC08) have suggested the use of both configurations. For
both analyses the P-Δ effect must be taken into account, see Sheet 8.
As specified by Eurocode 8 (§4.3.3.4.2.3.) the maximum lateral displacement could be between
zero and the value corresponding to 150% of the target displacement (defined in §4.3.3.4.2.6. of
EC8).
The target displacement has been determined from the elastic response spectrum, see Sheet 7,
following the annex B of Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1:2004).
For the case in exam the modal and mass pushover methods have been addressed as required by
specific standards.
Figure 3.18 compares the capacity curves of different methods (a) mass, (b) modal and (c) the
Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) extracted by the modal curve (Figure
3.18b).
(a) mass (b) modal
(c) ADRS of modal curve of (b)

53
Figure 3.18 Capacity curves: (a) mass, (b) modal and (c) ADRS of modal curve of (b)
The maximum displacements of capacity curves (Figure 3.18a and b), equal to 224 mm and 179
mm for mass and modal methods respectively, show that the displacement capacity of the structure
in exam is greater than the required displacement capacity determined for that site (116 mm), see
curve EC8_q=1.5 of Figure 3.16. For this reason the seismic analysis of the structure is satisfied.
The demand curve (detailed in Sheet 7) is used in agreement with the capacity curve to predict the
target displacement point T*, see Figure 3.18c.
Considering the case in exam, umax = 0.179m and dmax = 0.1375 m, see Figure 3.18c, the seismic
analysis is verified.
3.5. ULS analysis
In the following the diagrams of the forces and moments in four frames are reported for the
different ultimate limit state load combinations, and an example of structural verification of a
compressed member is carried out. The diagrams relative to the seismic load combinations present
two values of the internal actions in the frame elements, since the oscillations due to the earthquake
produce internal actions with opposite signs. Only the diagrams in the x-z plane are considered, for
which the highest values of forces and moments are obtained. The structural verification is based on
the formulations given in (CNR-DT205/2007). Anyway, since in the document mentioned above
only double-T sections are considered, indications are given also for the verification of other kinds
of profiles, on the base of formulations available in the literature (Bank 2006, Kollar 2003, Tarjan et
al 2010a-b).

54
In the following every figure shows the forces and moment diagrams of the structure subjected to
the different load combinations in x- and y-direction, see Table 3.4. In every scheme the most
stressed member is evidenced by a black circle and the related value of the internal action is
indicated for the specific frame detailed in Figure 3.1.
Frame 1 = -387kN Frame 1 = -387kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.19 Fundamental load combination, axial force diagrams
118kN 162kN
Frame 1 Frame 1
-517kN -560kN
49kN -114kN
Frame 2 Frame 2
-510kN -348kN
49kN -114kN
Frame 3 Frame 3
-510kN -348kN
118kN 162kN
Frame 4 Frame 4
-517kN -560kN
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction
Figure 3.20 Seismic load combination, axial force diagrams
71922 71922
Frame 1 Frame 1
kNmm kNmm
134739 134739
Frame 2 Frame 2
kNmm kNmm
134739 134739
Frame 3 Frame 3
kNmm kNmm

55
71922 71922
Frame 4 Frame 4
kNmm kNmm
Figure 3.21 Fundamental load combination, bending moment diagrams
40382kNmm 41666kNmm
Frame 1 Frame 1
44234kNmm 42951kNmm
76312kNmm 77615kNmm
Frame 2 Frame 2
80221kNmm 78918kNmm
76312kNmm 76312kNmm
Frame 3 Frame 3
80221kNmm 80221kNmm
40384kNmm 41667kNmm
Frame 4 Frame 4
44236kNmm 42952kNmm
Figure 3.22 Seismic load combination, bending moment diagrams
Frame 1 = 79kN Frame 1 = 79kN

Figure 3.23 Fundamental load combination, shear force diagrams
46kN 46kN
Frame 1 Frame 1
47kN 47kN
86kN 87kN
Frame 2 Frame 2
87kN 87kN
86kN 87kN
Frame 3 Frame 3
87kN 87kN
46kN 46kN
Frame 4 Frame 4
47kN 47kN
Figure 3.24 Seismic load combination, shear force diagrams

56
Frame 1 = 0.5kNmm Frame 1 = 0.5kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
0.02kNmm 0.02kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
0.03kNmm 0.03kNmm
Frame 4 = 0.5kNmm Frame 4 = 0.5kNmm

Figure 3.25 Fundamental load combination, torsional moment diagrams
0.6kNmm 1.5kNmm
Frame 1 Frame 1
0.4kNmm 1.4kNmm
0.5kNmm 1.5kNmm
Frame 2 Frame 2
0.4kNmm 1.4kNmm
0.5kNmm 1.5kNmm
Frame 3 Frame 3
0.4kNmm 1.4kNmm
0.6kNmm 0.6kNmm
Frame 4 Frame 4
0.4kNmm 0.4kNmm
Figure 3.26 Seismic load combination, torsional moment diagrams
3.5.2. Example of verification of a compressed member
The next verifications – in detail till page 84 – will be proposed., as anticipated in the introduction,
strictly following the CNR-DT205/2007 and the more recent CEN TC250 WG4L (2016). As an
example, a buckling verification is carried out for the member in compression evidenced in Figure
3.27. The stability verification of a compressed member requires the following relation to be
satisfied:
N c,Sd  N c,Rd 2 (3.4)
where Nc,Rd2 is the design value of force that causes buckling of the member.

57
Frame 4 -516706 N
Earthquake in x-direction
Figure 3.27 Seismic load combination, axial force diagram
In order to carry out the stability verification, the built-up cross-section of the member (2 U
300x100x15 mm) is considered as being a 300x200 double-T section, with the thickness of the web
equal to 30 mm and the thickness of the flanges equal to 15 mm.
For the case of double-T profiles the value of Nc,Rd2 is computed as:
N c,Rd 2  k  N loc,Rd (3.5)
where the design value of the compression force that causes the local instability of the profile,
Nloc,Rd, can be deduced from the relation:
Nloc,Rd  A  f loc
axial
,d (3.6)
axial
where f loc,d is the design value of the local critical stress, and can be computed as:
f loc,d 
axial 1
f

 min f loc
axial
 
axial
,k f , f loc,k 
w (3.7)
axial
where f loc,k  f
axial
and f loc,k 
w
represent, respectively, the critical stress of the flanges and of the web.
For the ultimate limit states, the partial coefficient of the material, γf, can be obtained by the
expression:
 f   f1  f 2 (3.8)
where factor γf1 takes into account the uncertainty level in the determination of the material
properties with a coefficient of variation Vx (Table 3.12); factor γf2 takes into account the brittle
behaviour of the material and for it a value of 1.30 is suggested by CNR-DT205/2007.
58
Vx ≤ 0.10 0.10 < Vx ≤ 0.20

1.10 1.15
Table 3.12 Values of the coefficient of variation Vx
The value of the coefficient of variation Vx related to the characteristic strength or deformation
property of the material must be determined through an appropriate series of experimental tests.
For the serviceability limit states the unit value is suggested for the material partial coefficient.
axial
Adopting the symbols of Figure 3.28, the value of f loc,k   f
can be conservatively assumed equal
to:
2
 tf 
 f loc 
axial
,k f  4  GL  
 bf


(3.9)
 
where GL is the shear modulus. The use of equation (3.9) corresponds to considering the flanges as
simply supported in correspondence of the web. In order to consider the restraint degree offered by
the web it is suggested to adopt the formulations reported in Appendix A of (CNR-DT205/2007).
Figure 3.28 Double-T section: symbols adopted for the geometrical properties (CNR-
DT205/2007)
axial

Similarly, the value of the critical stress in the compressed web, f loc,k w , can conservatively be 
assumed equal to (CNR-DT205/2007):
f  axial
loc,k w  kc 
 2  ELc  t w2
12  1  L  T   bw2
(3.10)

59
where ELc is the longitudinal compressive elastic modulus, νL is the longitudinal Poisson ratio and
νT is the transverse Poisson ratio.
Coefficient kc is given by:
ETc G  E  E
kc  2   4  1   L2  Tc   2  L  Tc (3.11)
E Lc ELc  ELc  ELc
where ETc is the transverse compressive elastic modulus, ELc is the longitudinal compressive elastic
modulus, GL is the shear modulus, νL is the longitudinal Poisson.
Coefficient k of equation (3.5) represents a reduction factor that takes into account the interaction
between local and global buckling of the member. This coefficient assumes a unit value if the
slenderness of the member tends to zero or in presence of restraints that prevent global buckling.
The value of the coefficient can be computed as (CNR-DT205/2007):
1 
k      2  c  2 
2 
(3.12)
c 
where symbol c denotes a numerical coefficient that, in absence of more accurate experimental
evaluations, can be assumed equal to 0.65, and:
1  2
 (3.13)
2
The slenderness λ is equal to:
N loc,Rd
 (3.14)
N Eul
with:
1   Eeff  I min
2
N Eul   (3.15)
f L20

60
In equation (3.15) Eeff is the effective modulus of elasticity, Imin is the minimum moment of inertia
of the cross-section and L0 is the effective length of the member.
In Figure 3.29a the trend of k for varying λ is represented.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.29 Local and global buckling modes for columns: (a) CNR-DT205/2007 and (b)
Barbero, 1999.
The effective length of the member, L0, to be introduced in equation (3.15), can be evaluated
through the formulations reported in Eurocode 3. For a column in a non-sway mode, as for the case
in exam, the buckling length ratio l/L can be obtained from the diagram of Figure 3.30.
For a continuous column, as the one in exam, and with reference to Figure 3.31, coefficients η1 and
η2 can be obtained from relations (Eurocode 3):
K c  K1
1  (3.16)
K c  K1  K11  K12
Kc  K2
2  (3.17)
K c  K 2  K 21  K 22
where Kc is the stiffness coefficient of the column I/L (I = second moment of inertia while L =
length of column), K1 and K2 are the stiffness coefficients for the adjacent lengths of columns and
Kij is the effective beam stiffness coefficient.
If the beams are not subjected to axial forces, as in the case in exam, their effective stiffness
coefficients can be determined from Table 3.13.

61
Conditions of rotational restraint at far end of beam Effective beam stiffness coefficient K
Fixed at far end 1.0 I/L
Pinned at far end 0.75 I/L
Rotation as at near end (double curvature) 1.5 I/L
Rotation equal and opposite to that at near end (single
0.5 I/L
curvature)
General case. Rotation θa at near end and θb at far end (1 + 0.5θb/θa) I/L
Table 3.13 Effective beam stiffness coefficient (Eurocode 3)
Figure 3.30 Buckling length ratio l/L for a column in a non-sway mode (EC3)
Figure 3.31 Distribution factors for the case in exam (a); distribution factors for
continuous columns, EC3 (b)
62
For the case in exam we have (Figure 3.31a):
K c  K1  26811875 / 4600  5829 mm3
K11  1.0  4687500 / 5400  868 mm3 (fixed at far end, Table 3.13)
 2  0 mm3 (the base of the column is fixed)
From equation (3.16) we have:
5829 5829
1   0.93
5829 5829 868
From Figure 3.30, considering η1=0.93 and η2=0 (see red point in Figure 3.30), a buckling length
l/L between 0.675 and 0.7 is obtained. We conservatively adopt the value 0.7. Thus, the effective
length of the member, to be introduced in equation (3.15), results:
L0  4600 0.7  3220 mm
From equation (3.15) the Euler buckling load results:
1  2  23000  26811875
N Eul    392249 N
1.15  1.3 3220 2
From equation (3.11) the value of coefficient kc results:
7000 4500  7000  7000

kc  2   4  1  0.32    2  0.3   2.05
23000 23000  23000  23000
From equation (3.10) the value of the critical stress in the compressed web results:
 2  23000 302
f 
axial
loc,k w  2.05 
12  1  0.3  0.3  2852
 472 MPa
From equation (3.9) the value of the critical stress of the flanges results:
 
2
 15 
axial
f loc,k f  4  4500    101 MPa
 200 
The design value of the local critical stress, computed through equation (3.7), results:

63
,d 
axial
f loc
1
1.15  1.3
 
 min 101 , 472  68 MPa
From equation (3.6) the design value of the compression force that causes the local instability
results:
Nloc,Rd  14100  68  958800 N
From equation (3.14) the slenderness results:
958800
  1.56
392249
1  1.562
  1.72
2
From equation (3.12) coefficient k results:
 1.72  1.722  0.65 1.562   0.35

1
k 2 
0.65 1.56 
From equation (3.5) the value of N c ,Rd 2 results:
Nc, Rd 2  0.35  958800  335580 N
Since 516706 N > 335580 N the verification is not satisfied. It would be necessary to adopt a stiffer
profile for the member. For example, adopting a 400x400x20 mm wide flange profile the critical
load would result about 590 kN (using the same value of the effective length) and the verification
would result verified.
The reported formulas are valid for the case of a double-T profile. For general cross-section types,
the value of N c ,Rd 2 can be assumed.
 1 
N c,Rd 2  min N c,Rd 2, glob,  N c,Rd 2,loc  (3.18)
 f 

64
where N c,Rd 2, glob is the design value of the global buckling strength and N c,Rd 2,loc is the design value
of the local buckling strength.
The design value of the global buckling strength, N c,Rd 2, glob , can be computed as following (Bank
2006):
N Eul
N c ,Rd 2, glob 
 N 
1   Eul 
 GL  AV 
where N Eul is the Euler buckling load, defined in equation (3.15), GL is the design value of the
shear modulus and AV is the shear area of the cross-section.
For box-section profiles, if the webs and the flanges are considered as simply supported, their
buckling loads for unit length is (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b):
N x,cr SSf   2  2  D11  f  D22  f   2  D12  f  2  D66  f 

2
(3.19)
bf
N x,cr SSw   2  2  D11 w  D22 w  2  D12 w  2  D66 w 

2
(3.20)
bw
In previous equations (3.19) and (3.20) subscripts f and w refer to the flange and to the web,
respectively, b is the width (see Figure 3.32) and D11 , D22 , D12 and D66 are elements of the
bending stiffness matrix D  of a plate. For a plate consisting of a single orthotropic layer they are
E1  h 3 E2  h 3 G12  h 3
given by D11  , D22  , D12   12  D22 , D66 
12  R 12  R 12
where R  1  12  E2 / E1 , h is the thickness of the plate,  12 is the Poisson’s ratio, E1 and E2 are
2
the Young’s moduli and G12 is the shear modulus.
The flange buckles first when (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b):
N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.21)

65
where 11 is the tensile compliance of plate. For a plate consisting of a single orthotropic layer:
11  1/E1  h (3.22)
In this case the webs elastically restrain the rotation of the flange as springs with constant given
from (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b):
c  D22 w  N x,cr  f  11  f 

SS
k  1 
 N x,cr SS
(3.23)
bw  11 w 
 w 
with c  2 .
The buckling load for unit length of the flange is then calculated with this spring constant using the
following expression:
N x,cr  f   
  2  2  1  4.139   D11  D22  2  0.62   2  D12  2  D66  / L2y  (3.24)
where L y is the width of the flange,   1/ 1  10  and   D22 / k  Ly  .
The web buckles first when:
N    
SS
x ,cr f 11 f  N x,cr w  11 w
SS
(3.25)
In this case the flanges restrain the rotation of the web, and the spring constant is (Kollar 2003,
Tarjan et al 2010a-b):
c  D22  f  N x,cr SS  11 w 

k  1  w
 N x,cr SS
(3.26)
bf  11  f 
 f 
with c  2 .
The buckling load of the web is calculated with this spring constant by expression (3.27).
For C and Z-section profiles the local buckling loads of the flange, N x ,cr SS
f
, and of the web,
N  SS
x ,cr w considered as simply supported, are computed as (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b):

66
12  D66  f
N x,cr SSf  (3.27)
b 2f
 
SS
N x,cr w
2
 2  2
bw
 D11 w  D22 w  2  D12 w  2  D66 w  (3.28)
The flange buckles first when:
In this case the web restrains the rotation of the flange (see Figure 3.32), and the spring constant is
given from equation (3.26), with c  2 .
The buckling load of the flanges is calculated with this spring constant by the following
expressions:
N x,cr  f 
 K  15.1  1   1     6  1  
 D11  D22  
  / L
when K  1
2
  7  1  K  / 1  4.12    y (3.30)
 
N x,cr  f 
 D11  D22   15.1 1   K     6  1   / L2y  when K  1 (3.31)
Where K  2  D66  D12  / D11  D22 ,   1/ 1  7.22  3.55   and   D12 /2  D66  D12  .
N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.32)
In this case the flanges restrain the rotation of the edges of the web and the restraining torsional
stiffness is given as indicated in equation 3.33 (see Figure 3.32):
 N SS    
 b f  1 
11 w 
GL  J t  4  D66  f
x ,cr w
 N x,cr  f  11  f 
SS
(3.33)
 
The buckling load is then calculated by expression (3.27).

67
For L-section profiles the local buckling loads of the flange, N x ,cr SS
f
, and of the web, N x,cr SS
w
,
considered as simply supported, are computed as (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b):
12  D66  f
N x,cr SSf  (3.34)
b 2f
 
N x,cr SSw  12  D266 w (3.35)
bw
The flange buckles first when:
In this case the web restrains the rotation of the flanges (see Figure 3.32), and the restraining
torsional stiffness is given from:
 N x,cr SS  11  f 

GL  J t  4  D66 w  bw  1  
f
 N x,cr w  11 w 
SS
(3.37)
 
The buckling load of the flange is calculated with this torsional stiffness by the following
expression:
N x,cr  f  3  D22 /  '12  D66  / L2y when 1.17   ' D11 / D22  1 (3.38)
N x,cr  f  7  4.12   '  

D11 / D22  D11  D22  12  D66 / L2y when 1.17   ' D11 / D22  1 (3.39)
Where  '  D22  Ly / G  J t  .
N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.40)
The buckling load is then calculated by expression (3.27).

68
Figure 3.32 Cross-sections of thin-walled members (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al. 2010)
The buckling loads of the web and flange considered as simply supported (equations. 3.19, 3.20,
3.27, 3.28, 3.34, 3.35) can also be conservatively adopted. This approximation can result in a
critical load about 5% to 60% lower (Kollar 2003, Tarjan et al 2010a-b).
Instead of using the previously reported formulations, the critical load can be determined by
numerical-analytical procedures, imposing an initial imperfection, i.e. a displacement field
proportioned to the first critical mode.
In consideration of the viscoelastic behaviour of the pultruded FRP material, in buckling

verifications of members subjected to long-term loading it might be appropriate to adopt reduced
values of the elastic constants (see section 3.6.2.2).
3.6. SLS analysis
In the following the diagrams of the forces and moments in the four frames are reported, for the
different serviceability limit state load combinations, and the structural verifications are carried out
for some members. In particular, a verification of the stresses and a verification of the maximum
deflection are conducted. Only the diagrams in the x-z plane are considered. The structural
verifications are based on the indications given in (CNR-DT205/2007).
In the following every figure shows the forces and moment diagrams of the structure subjected to
the different load combination in x- and y-direction, see Table 3.4. In every scheme the most
stressed member is evidenced by a black circle and the related value of the internal action is
indicated for the specific frame detailed in Figure 3.1.

69

Figure 3.33 Rare load combination, axial force diagrams

Figure 3.34 Frequent load combination, axial force diagrams

Figure 3.35 Quasi-permanent load combination, axial force diagrams

70
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
49477kNmm 49479kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
92610kNmm 92611kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
92611kNmm 92610kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
49479kNmm 49477kNmm
Figure 3.36 Rare load combination, bending moment diagrams
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
44101kNmm 44102kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
81853kNmm 81853kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
81853kNmm 81853kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
44103kNmm 44101kNmm
Figure 3.37 Frequent load combination, bending moment diagrams
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
42309kNmm 42310kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
78267kNmm 78267kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
78267kNmm 78267kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
42310kNmm 42309kNmm
Figure 3.38 Quasi-permanent load combination, bending moment diagrams

71

Figure 3.39 Rare load combination, shear force diagrams

Figure 3.40 Frequent load combination, shear force diagrams

Figure 3.41 Quasi-permanent load combination, shear force diagrams

72
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
0.3kNmm 0.4kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
0.01kNmm 0.03kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
0.02kNmm 0.005kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
0.3kNmm 0.3kNmm
Figure 3.42 Rare load combination, torsional moment diagrams
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
0.3kNmm 0.3kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
0.02kNmm 0.03kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
0.02kNmm 0.009kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
0.3kNmm 0.3kNmm
Figure 3.43 Frequent load combination, torsional moment diagrams
Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
0.3kNmm 0.3kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
0.02kNmm 0.03kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
0.02kNmm 0.01kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
0.3kNmm 0.4kNmm
Figure 3.44 Quasi-permanent load combination, torsional moment diagrams

73
3.6.2. Verification of elements
3.6.2.1. Stresses
A verification of the compressive stress induced by the axial force and the bending moment is
carried out for the column evidenced in Figure 3.45.
Frame 3 Frame 3
-182,513 57,139,508
N Nmm
axial force diagram bending moment diagram

Wind in x-direction
Figure 3.45 Quasi-permanent load combination; axial force and bending moment diagrams
It must be verified that the design value of the stress, f Sd , is lower than the limit value, f Rd ,
defined as follows (CNR-DT205/2007):
f Rk
f Rd    (3.41)
f
where  is the conversion factor, f Rk is the characteristic value of the corresponding strength
component and  f is the partial coefficient of the material.
The conversion factor η is the product of the environmental factor ηe and of the one related to the
long-term effects, ηl.
The mechanical properties of FRP profiles can be degraded in presence of certain environmental
conditions: alkaline environment, humidity, extreme temperatures, thermal cycles, ultraviolet
radiations. In aggressive environments the value of the environmental factor ηe can be assumed
equal to 1 if appropriate protective coatings are used. Otherwise the value of ηe must be
conveniently reduced, also in relation to the design life.
The mechanical properties of FRP profiles can also be degraded due to rheological phenomena
(creep, relaxation, fatigue). Values of the conversion factor ηl for long-term actions and for cyclic

74
loading (fatigue) are reported in Table 3.14. In presence of both long-term and cycling loading the
overall conversion factor is obtained by the product of the two related conversion factors.
Type of loading (SLS) (ULS)

Quasi-permanent loading 0.3 1.0
Cyclic loading (fatigue) 0.5 1.0
Table 3.14 Values of the conversion factor for long-term effects
The compressive stress induced by the axial force is:
N Sd 182513
f Sd ,axial    13 MPa
A 14100
The compressive stress induced by the bending moment is:
M Sd 57139508
f Sd ,bending    50 MPa
W 1141050
The total compressive stress in the column results:
f Sd  f Sd,axial  f Sd,bending  13  50  63 MPa
f Rd  1 0.3 
220
 66 MPa
1
Since f Rd is higher than f Sd the verification is satisfied.
3.6.2.2. Deformations
For the beam evidenced in Figure 3.46 a verification of the deflection is carried out.
Figure 3.46 The beam for which the deflection analysis is carried out
75
The deflection of members must be evaluated taking into account the contributions due to flexural
and shear deformability.
Deflection limits are reported in Table 3.15. In order to take into account the creep behaviour of the
material, the evaluation of the displacements for the quasi-permanent load condition must be
conducted adopting reduced values of the elastic constants, with respect to a time equal to the
design working life of the structure (CNR-DT205/2007).
Values of the elastic and shear moduli at time t, for a load applied at t=0, can be computed as:
EL t  
EL
1  E t 
(3.42)
GL t  
GL
1  G t 
(3.43)
In serviceability limit state, SLS, the action load can be calculated in relationship with the values for
the transversal deflection η assumed as limitation in design, Tables 3.16 and 3.17.
The values of the creep coefficient for the longitudinal strains, E t  , and for the shear strains,
G t  , are reported in Table 3.15.
t (time from the application of the load)  E t  G t 

1 year 0.26 0.57
5 years 0.42 0.98
10 years 0.50 1.23
30 years 0.60 1.76
50 years 0.66 2.09
Table 3.15 Creep coefficient for longitudinal and shear strains (CNR-DT205/2007)
Quasi-permanent load combination δmax

Floors in presence of plasters, non-flexible partition walls or other brittle finishing
L/500
materials
Floors without previous limitations L/250
Rare load combination δmax
Footbridges or other structures with an high ratio between accidental and permanent loads L/100
Table 3.16 Recommended deflection limits (CNR-DT205/2007)
In Table 3.17 (Clarke 1996) η is presented as ηmax and η1. ηmax is the maximum deflection while η1
is the variation of deflection due to the variable loading increased by time dependent deformations
due the permanent load.

76
Limiting values for the vertical deflection

Typical conditions
ηmax η1
Walkways for occasional non-public access Length/150 Length/175
General non-specific applications Length/175 Length/200
General public access flooring Length/250 Length/300
Floors and roofs supporting plaster or other brittle
Length/250 Length/350
finish or non-flexible partitions
Floors supporting columns (unless the deflection
has been included in the global analysis for the Length/400 Length/450
ultimate limit state)
Where δmax can impair the appearance of the
Length/250 -
structure
Table 3.17 Recommended limiting values for deflection in SLS (Clarke 1996)
In Table 3.18 the formulas for the computation of the maximum deflection η of beams taking into
account the shear deformability are reported for some common support and loading conditions.
q  L4 q  L2 q  L4 q  L2
a  max   e  max  
8  E L  I 2  GL  AV 384  E L  I 6  GL  AV
F  L3 F L F  L3 F L
b  max   f  max  
3  E L  I GL  AV 192 E L  I 4  GL  AV
5 q  L4 q  L2 F  a  L2 a 2  F  a
 max     max     
c 384 E L  I 8  G L  AV g E L  I  8 6  GL  AV
F  L3 FL
d  max  
48  E L  I 4  G L  AV
Table 3.18 Maximum deflection η of beams with the shear effects.
The considered beam is subjected to a total distributed load q of 31 N/mm in the quasi-permanent
load combination.
Assuming a design working life of 50 years we have, from equations (3.42) and (3.43) and from
Table 3.18:
E L t  
23000
 13855 MPa
1  0.66

77
GL t  
4500
 1456 MPa
1  2.09
Assuming for the considered beam the static scheme e) of Table 3.18 we have:
31  54004 31  54002
d max    184 mm
384 13855  31400000 6 1456  4000
The computed deflection results significantly larger than the limit of L/250 (22 mm). Adopting, for
example, a 500x250x20 mm I-profile the maximum deflection would result 17 mm and the
verification would be satisfied.
3.7. Joint's verification
The verification of the joint represented in Figure 3.47 is carried out in the following. In particular,
the verification is carried out for the truss evidenced in the figure, subjected to axial tension. The
joint is realized using 14 mm diameter steel bolts that connect the pultruded FRP truss to a
laminated FRP plate. The member has a built-up cross-section realized by 2 U 200x60x10 mm. The
verification is carried out on base of the indications reported in CNR-DT205/2007.
Figure 3.47 Detail of joint (dimensions in millimetres), L’Aquila 2010 (p. 20)
In the case of bolted connections the forces acting on every single bolt can’t be evaluated though
simple equilibrium criteria, as it is usual in the case of ductile materials.

78
In general, the bolted connections should meet the following requirements: 1) the barycentric axes
of the structural elements should be converge in the same point; 2) with shear action, all bolts must
have the same diameter and at least two of them must be arranged in the direction of the load; 3)
stiffer washers should be placed under the bolt head and the nut; 4) the bolt torque should be such
as to ensure an adequate diffusion of the stresses around the hole; 5) the tightening of the bolts
should be take into account the compressive strength of the profile in the direction orthogonal to
fibres. The fastening torque must be appropriate to the diameter and class of the bolts; the
manufacturers recommend 20-25 Nm.
The geometrical limitations for the bolted connections are summarized in Table 3.19.
Bolts diameter tmin ≤ db ≤ 1.5 ∙ tmin

Holes diameter d ≤ db + 1 mm
Washers diameter dr ≥ 2 ∙ db
Distance between holes wx ≥ 4 ∙ db; wy ≥ 4 ∙ db (Figure 3.48-A)
Distance from the end of the plate e/db ≥ 4; s/db ≥ 0.5 ∙ (wy/db) (Figure 3.48-A)
Table 3.19 Geometrical limitations in bolted connections (CNR-DT205/2007)
Where: db = diameter of the bolts; tmin = thickness of the thinnest joined element; d = diameter of
hole; dr = external diameter; wx and wy = distances between the centre of the holes (Figure 3.48-A);
e = distance of the bolt from the end of the plate in the direction of the force; s = distance of the bolt
from the edge in the direction orthogonal to the force.
In the case in which the resultant of the applied external forces passes through the centroid of the
bolting (Figure 3.48-B), it is possible to assign to the bolts forces that are proportional to the
coefficients reported in Table 3.20 (CNR-DT205/2007).
Number of rows row 1 row 2 row 3 row 4

FRP/FRP 120 %
1
FRP/metal 120 %
FRP/FRP 60 % 60 %
2
FRP/metal 70 % 50 %
FRP/FRP 60 % 25 % 60 %
3
FRP/metal 60 % 30 % 30 %
FRP/FRP 40 % 30 % 30 % 40 %
4
FRP/metal 50 % 35 % 25 % 15 %
>4 Not recommended
Table 3.20 Shear force distribution coefficients in every bolts row in a bolted connection (CNR-
DT205/2007)

79
3.7.1. Net-tension failure of the plate
The verification, with respect to normal stresses, of the resisting cross section of the plate weakened
due to the presence of the holes results satisfied if the following limitations are respected (CNR-
DT205/2007):
- tensile stress parallel to the fibres direction (Figure 3.48-Ca):
 f Lt ,Rd  w  n  d   t
1
VSd  (3.44)
 Rd
- tensile stress orthogonal to the fibres direction (Figure 3.48-Cb):
 fTt ,Rd  w  n  d   t
1
VSd  (3.45)
 Rd
where  Rd is the partial coefficient of the model, assumed equal to 1.11 for cross-sections with
holes, VSd is the force transmitted from the bolts to the plate, f Lt , Rd and f Tt ,Rd are, respectively, the
design value of the tensile strength of the material in the direction parallel to fibres and in the
direction orthogonal to the fibres, t is the thickness of the element and n is the number of holes.
For the case in exam, since we have two bolt rows, the shear force in every row results, from Table
3.20, VSd  136961 0.6  82177 N
From equation (3.44) we obtain:
 268  200  2  14  20  830559 N > 82177 N

1
1.11
so the verification is satisfied.

80
3.7.2. Shear-out failure of the plate
The verification with respect to the shear-out failure mode (Figure 3.48-D) results satisfied if the
following limitation is respected (CNR-DT205/2007):
VSd  fV ,Rd  2  e  d   t (3.46)
where fV , Rd is the design value of the shear strength of the FRP element.
For the case in exam we have, from equation (3.46):
27  2  90  14  20  89640 N > 82177 N
3.7.3. Bearing failure of the plate
In the verification with respect to the bearing failure of the plate, the mean value of the pressure
exerted by the bolt shank on the walls of the hole must satisfy the following limitations (CNR-
DT205/2007):
- stress parallel to the fibres direction (Figure 3.48-Ea):
VSd  f Lr ,Rd  d b  t (3.47)
- stress orthogonal to the fibres direction (Figure 3.48-Eb):
VSd  f Tr ,Rd  d b  t (3.48)
where f Lr ,Rd and f Tr , Rd are, respectively, the design value of the bearing strength of the material in
the directions parallel and orthogonal to the fibres.
For the case in exam we have, from equation (3.47):
147  14  2  20  82320 N > 82177 N

81
(A) Bolted connection (CNR-DT205/2007)
(B) Arrangement of the bolts rows in a bolted connection between two FRP plates or between a
FRP plate and a metal one. The resultant of the external forces passes through the centroid of the
bolting (CNR-DT205/2007)
(C) Net-tension failure mode (CNR-DT205/2007)
(D) Shear-out failure mode (CNR-DT205/2007)
(E)_Bearing failure mode (CNR-DT205/2007)

Figure 3.48 Verification of the joints; schemes reported in CNR-DT205/2007
Figure 3.49
82
3.7.4. Shear failure of the steel bolt
The verification with respect to the shear failure of the steel bolt results satisfied if the following
limitation is respected (CNR-DT205/2007):
VSd  fVb ,Rd  Ab (3.49)
where fVb ,Rd represents the design value of the shear strength of the bolt, as defined in current
standards, and Ab is the resistance area of the cross-section of the bolt.
For the case in exam we have:
0.6  f ub 0.6  800

fVb ,Rd    384 MPa
M2 1.25
In previous equation f ub is the tensile strength of the bolt and  M 2 is the partial safety factor.
Since the shear force acting on every bolt is VSd  82177/ 2  41089 N, we have, from equation
(3.49):
384 115  44160 N > 41089 N
3.8. References
Ascione, L., Giordano, A. and Spadea, S., Lateral buckling of pultruded FRP beams, Composites
Part B: Engineering, 42 4, 2011, 819-824.
Ascione, L., Berardi, V.P., Giordano, A. and Spadea, S., Buckling failure modes of FRP thin-
walled beams, Composites Pt B: Engineering, 47, 2013, 357-364. DOI:
10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.11.006
Ascione, L. Berardi, V.P., Giordano, A. and Spadea, S., Local buckling behavior of FRP thin-
walled beams: A mechanical model, Composite Structures, 98, 2013, 111–120.
Ascione, L., Berardi, V.P. and Spadea, S., Macro-scale analysis of local and global buckling
behavior of T and C composite sections, Mechanics Research Communications (Special Issue), 58,
2014, 105-111. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093641313001614
Ascione, L., Berardi, V.P., Giordano, A. and Spadea, S., Pre-buckling imperfection sensitivity of
pultruded FRP profiles, Composites Part B – Engineering, 72, 2015, 206-212.
Bank LC. Composites for construction-structural design with FRP materials, John Wiley & Sons,
NJ, 2006.
83
Bartbero, E.J., De Vivo, L., Beam-Column Design Equation for Wide-Flange Pultruded Structural
Shapes, Journal of Composite for Construction, Vol. 3, n. 4 (1999), pp. 185-191.
Boscato, G., and Russo, S. Dissipative capacity on FRP spatial pultruded structure, Composite
Structures, 2014; Volume 113(7), p.339–353.
Clarke JL. (Ed.). EUROCOMP design code and handbook: Structural design of polymer
composites, E & FN Spon, London, 1996.
CNR-DT205/2007 Guide for the design and constructions of structures made of FRP pultruded
elements, National Research Council of Italy, Advisory Board on Techincal Recommendations.
Creative pultrusions design guide,’ Creative Pultrusions, Inc., Alum Bank, Pa, 1988.
Engesser, F. (1889). “Ueber die Knickfestigkeit gerader Stabe”, Zeitschrift für Architekter und
Ingenieurwsen, 35(4), 455-462 (in German).
Eurocode 1: Basis of structural design. EN 1990:2002 (E)
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules. ENV 1993-1-1: 1992. Incorporating
Corrigenda February 2006 and March 2009.
rules for buildings. EN1998-1:2004 (E),: Formal Vote Version (Stage 49), 2004.
Feroldi, F. and Russo, S. (2016). Structural Behavior of All-FRP Beam-Column Plate-Bolted
Joints. J. Compos. Constr. ,10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000667, 04016004.
Girão Coelho, A.M. and Mottram, J.T., ‘A review of the behaviour and analysis of mechanically
fastened joints in pultruded fibre reinforced polymers,’ Materials & Design, 74, (2015), 86-107.
ISSN: 0261-3069
Girão Coelho, A.M., Mottram J.T. and Harries, K.A., Bolted connections of pultruded GFRP:
Implications of geometric characteristics on net section failure, Composite Structures, 131, (2015),
878-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.048
Mottram, J.T., Lateral-torsional buckling of thin-walled composite I-beams by the finite difference
method, Composites Engrg., 2 2, 1992, 91-104.
Mottram, J.T., Lutz, C., and Dunscombe, G.C., Aspects on the behaviour of bolted joints for
pultruded fibre reinforced polymer profiles, International Conference on Advanced Polymer
Composites for Structural Applications in Construction (ACIC04), Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, 348-391.
Pecce, M. and Cosenza, E., Local buckling curves for the design of FRP profiles, Thin-Walled
Structures, 37 3, 2000, 207-222.
Pecce, M. and Cosenza, E., FRP structural profiles and shapes, in Wiley. Encyclopedia of
Composites, 2012 - Wiley Online Library.

84
Poursha M, Khoshnoudiana F, Moghadam A.S. A consecutive modal pushover procedure for

estimating the seismic demands of tall buildings. Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 591_599.
Poursha M, Khoshnoudiana F, Moghadam A.S. A consecutive modal pushover procedure for
nonlinear static analysis of one-way unsymmetric-plan tall building structures. Engineering
Structures 33 (2011) 2417–2434.
Priestley M.J.N., Calvi, M.C., and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007) Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures IUSS Press, Pavia, 670 pp.
Russo, S., Experimental and finite element analysis of a very large pultruded FRP structure
subjected to free vibration, Compos. Struct., 2012; 94(3): 1097–1105.
SAP2000 Advanced v. 10.1.2. Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, Inc., 1995
University Ave, Berkeley, CA.
Kollar L.P., Local Buckling of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Composite Structural Members with Open
and Closed Cross Section. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2003. 129: 1503-1513.
Tarjan, G., Sapkas, A. and Kollar, L.P. Local Web Buckling of Composite (FRP) Beams. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 29, No. 10/ 2010.
Tarjan, G., Sapkas, A. and Kollar, L.P. Stability Analysis of Long Composite Plates with
Restrained Edges Subjected to Shear and Linearly Varying Loads, J. of Reinf. Plastics and Comp.,
Vol. 29, No. 9/ 2010.
Turvey GJ, Cooper C. Review of tests on bolted joints between pultruded GRP profiles.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Structures & Buildings 157, June 2004 Issue SB3.
p. 211–233.

85
4. FINAL EVALUATION FOR DESIGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC ZONE
Overview
The absence of specific calculation codes for the seismic design of FRP structures implies that the
most restrictive parameters must be taken. The behaviour factor q is calibrated with the real material
characteristics and structural types (therefore with q = 1 and damping coefficient ζ=5%, as
suggested by Eurocode 8 (2004) and NTC08 (2008)); this leads to a conservative calculation
approach.
The low density of the FRP material (1700-1900 kg/m³) is a fundamental point in seismic design,
since it brings a spontaneous reduction of the seismic actions and a limited participating mass and
acceleration.
This feature must be opportunely managed in the design phase by adopting appropriate boundary
conditions at the base and/or stabilizing loads at different heights, to withstand the horizontal
displacements.
On the basis of some researches (Boscato and Russo 2014) the low frequencies of the vibration
modes and the limited dissipation capacity of FRP structures (1.5<ζ<2) must be accounted for, with
reference to the seismic characteristics of the soil.
The increment of flexural deformability with the height of FRP structures tends to increase the
period of vibration T0.

86
Figure 4.1. Fundamental period of RC, Steel and FRP structures (detail A)
The fundamental periods T0 (Sheet 3) of different FRP structures have been compared with
traditional materials, such as RC (Reinforced Concrete) and Steel, in Figure 4.1.
As regards the FRP structures two T0-height relationships are experimental values (labeled EXP),
while the others have been calculated by numerical model. The best linear relation concerns the RC
structures having the R2 (coefficient of determination) value closest to 1, while for FRP and steel
the R2 value is less than 0.5 highlighting the scattering of results due to the high variability of the
mechanical-physical-geometrical characteristics. The linear regressions of FRP and steel structures
show the tendency to high period of vibration due to the greater deformability of these structures
with respect to RC buildings.
When an earthquake’s PGA (Peek Ground Acceleration) happens along a period shorter than 0.5 s,
FRP structures - that are characterized by a long vibration period - keep on moving in free
vibrations that slowly damp and avoid resonance between the time-delayed response of the structure
and the fast one of stiff types of soil (i.e. A and B types).
Since that the high deformability could be faced with an over dimensioning of the FRP elements
and so over passing the above prudential approach a detailed preliminarily Design by Testing phase
is judged necessary, to assess the parameters and coefficients that identify the dynamic structural
response of FRP structures.

87
The results of the first study conducted on the damping value of the mono-dimensional elements
(Boscato 2011, Boscato and Russo 2009) and of the FRP structures (Boscato and Russo 2014) are
particularly interesting when compared with the values recorded in the following table defined by
Chopra (1995) and Newmark and Hall (1982) which refers to traditional materials, Tables 4.1 and
4.2.
Structure typologies and boundary conditions ζ
Structures with elements below of 50% than elastic limit
RC Structures with first cracks
RC Prestressed Structures 2-3%
Welded steel structures
RC Structures cracked 3-5%
Bolted or nailed steel structures
5-7%
Bolted or nailed wood structures
Structures with elements near to elastic limit
RC Prestressed Structures without pretension loss
5-7%
Welded steel strutures
RC Prestressed Structures
7-10%
RC Structures
Bolted or nailed steel structures
10-15%
Bolted wood structures
Nailed wood structures 15-20%
Masonry structures
Normal masonry structures 3%
Reinforced masonry structures 7%
Table 4.1. Damping coefficients ζ; Chopra (1995) and Newmark and Hall (1982)
Structure typologies and boundary conditions ζ

Members
Columns with fixed boundary conditions 2.5%
Beams with supported boundary conditions 2.5-3.5%
Structures
Structures with bolted beam-column connections 1.3%
Table 4.2. Damping coefficients ζ for pultruded FRP elements and structures
Nevertheless, in the design phase, the structure’s maximum displacements must be evaluated with
reference to the design earthquake and thus to the soil characteristics. For such highly deformable
structures, the absolute displacement of the whole mass is null under the inertial force, while the
relative displacement referred to the soil is maximum and opposite.
General recommendations
This document contains general rules for earthquake-resistant design of FRP buildings and should
be used in conjunction with CNR-DT205/2007, CEN TC250 WG4L and Sections 2 to 4 of EN
1998-1 and, finally, Chapter 7 of NTC08.
For the performance requirements and compliance criteria of structures, Section 2 of EN 1998-1
and NTC08 should be applied.
88
For the ground conditions and seismic action, Section 3 of EN 1998-1 and Chapter 3.2 of NTC08
must be applied.
For the general rules of design of structures, Section 4 of EN 1998-1 and Chapter 7 of NTC08
should be taken into account.
Design concepts
Earthquake resistant pultruded FRP structures should be designed in accordance with one of the
following design concepts (Table 4.3):
a) Low-dissipative structural behaviour for conservative approach
b) Dissipative structural behaviour
Design concept Structural Ductility Class

a) Low dissipative structural
DCL (Low)
behaviour
DCM (Medium)
b) Dissipative structural behaviour
DCH (High)
Table 4.3. Structural ductility classes (EC8, EN 1998-1:2004)
In design concept a) the action effects may be calculated on the basis of an elastic global analysis
without taking into account the dissipative behaviour of pultruded FRP structure offered by bolted
joints. In the case of irregularity in elevation the behaviour factor q should be corrected as indicated
in §2.2.5.3 but it needs to be taken smaller than minimum value. The resistance of the members and
of the connections should be assessed in accordance with CNR-DT205/2007 and NTC08. The
capability of parts of the structure to resist earthquake actions out of their elastic range is taken into
account. A structure belonging to a given ductility class should meet specific requirements in one or
more of the following two aspects: structural type and rotational capacity of connections.
In design concept b) the capability of parts of the structure to resist and dissipate the earthquake
actions through the strength hierarchy criteria is taken into account. Structures designed in
accordance with design concept b) should belong to structural ductility classes DCM or DCH.
These classes correspond to increased ability of the structure to dissipate energy through
mechanisms that involve the global structure. Depending on the ductility class, specific
requirements in one or more of the following aspects should be met: global geometry, strength
hierarchy criteria and rotational capacity of joints and connections.
Structural types
All-FRP buildings should be assigned to one of the structural types outlined in EN 1998-1, Section
6.3 according to the behaviour of their primary resisting structure under seismic actions:
89
a) Moment resisting frame (see EN 1998-1, Section 6.3);

b) Frames with concentric bracings (see EN 1998-1, Section 6.3);
d) Moment resisting frames combined with concentric bracings (see EN 1998-1, Section 6.3);
e) Structures with stiff cores or walls (see EN 1998-1, Section 6.3).
Behaviour factor
For regular pultruded FRP structures the behaviour factor q is listed in Table 4.4.
Structural Ductility Class Behaviour factor q
DCL (Low) 1
DCM (Medium) 1-1.5
DCH (High) >1.5
Table 4.4. Behaviour factors
For non-regular structures in elevation (see EN 1998-1, Section 4.2.3.3) the q-values listed in Table
5.2 should be reduced by 20%, but don’t need to be taken lower than q=1.
For structures having different and independent properties in the two horizontal directions, the q
factors to be used for the calculation of the seismic action effects in each main direction should
correspond to the properties of the structural system in the analyzed direction and then can be
different.
A conservative design approach is adopted in the manual with the consequence upon the choice of
the force reduction factor and of the damping coefficients required to define the response spectra.
Advices and precautions
In absence of ductile behaviour for brittle failure of pultruded FRP material, the ratio between the
residual strength after degradation and the initial one should be taken into account. The global
dissipative response of aforementioned design concept b is assumed to be due to the progressive
response of different parts involved by consecutive failure mechanisms through the strength
hierarchy criteria. Moment resisting frames combined with concentric bracings are recommended in
FRP structures to withstand horizontal actions. Dissipative zones should be located in joints and
connections, whereas the pultruded FRP members themselves should be regarded as behaving
elastically. The damage propagation in FRP pultruded bolted joints could be taken into account
through a design by testing at the preliminary phase.

90
With soil classes of low stiffness (C, D or E classes, see Eurocode 8 and NTC08), the constant
acceleration branch of the spectrum (from Tb to Tc) - and thus also the soil’s fundamental period of
resonance - increases. Taking into account the high vibration periods of FRP structures (about
>0.65 s), the design in presence of soils with a large frequency band of the acceleration plateau
must address the increase in eigenfrequencies (with a stiffness increase by inserting bracings) or the
increase in participating mass to avoid resonance in the soil-to-structure interaction.
The seismic design must account above all for second order phenomena that regard particularly
FRP members. Besides, dynamic actions induce member stress inversion that must be carefully
evaluated with reference to the high deformability of the material and to the higher vulnerability
(weakness) of FRP profiles in compression than in tension.
Even if not yet defined from clear rules and recommendations, the high deformability of FRP
structures suggests to limit the framed building to 2-3 floors with an interstory height of circa
3meters; this is due in order to exalt a conservative approach while waiting for more studies
especially on full size FRP structures.
The results of the verifications put in evidence some of the critical aspects of the structural
behaviour of pultruded FRP profiles. In particular, deformation and buckling limit states, rather than
material strength limits, frequently govern the design of FRP structural shapes because of their low
moduli and anisotropic behaviour. Moreover, the high shear deformability of the pultruded material
can also have a significant influence on the buckling behaviour. In fact, for the examined case, the
compression buckling check didn’t result satisfied, as well as the deflection check at the
serviceability limit state. Another critical aspect can regard the verification of the shear stress. In
fact, the shear response of pultruded FRP profiles is governed by the resin’s characteristics,
resulting in relatively low shear strength of the composite material. On the contrary, the material
performance in the longitudinal direction mostly depends on the fibre's characteristics, thus showing
very high values of the compressive and, especially, tensile strength.
Design strategies for enhanced seismic performance
For design purposes in order to achieve a dissipative response the following basic conditions must
be satisfied:
- base column connections, beam-to-column joints and bracing details must be designed in order to
sustain the anticipated cyclic deformation demand, without strength degradation or local failure, so
that the lateral strength and dissipative capacity is maintained during the seismic action;

91
- a specific over-strength of structural elements and strength hierarchy must be taken into account in
order to preserve the structural integrity under seismic action;
- only the concentrically braced configuration assures a better dynamic response of the frame. The
moment resisting frame must be solved with an over-strength design of structural elements and
joints. The combination of aforementioned configurations - moment resisting frame and concentric
bracings - guarantees a better seismic behavior both in term of resistance and dissipative capacity
through the interactive response;
- failure mechanisms triggered by local buckling and net section fracture preclude the global ductile
behavior. Mitigation of all potentially undesirable failure modes through appropriate detailing is
required to achieve good seismic performance;
- with regard to the FRP structure, characterized by elastic-brittle material, it is important to design
the collapse mechanism at the desired locations prior to the occurrence of other failure modes;
- the global second order effects (P-Δ) must be taken into account in the design phase to avoid the
amplification of drift. Considering the low self-weight these structures must possess sufficient
lateral stiffness and strength to control the deformation demand from earthquake;
- phases of progressive damage under repeated loading can be taken into account in design stage to
provide a global ductile response;
- several structural configurations can be adopted to reduce the seismic loads: moment resisting
frame MRF with dissipative point in beam-to-column joint, combination with shear walls,
concentrically braced frames CBF, buckling-restrained frames, eccentrically braced frames;
- frames with concentric V-bracings should be avoided. This configuration makes the beams work
in shear, then in the weakest direction.

92
4.1. References
Bernal D, Kojidi SM, Kwan K, Döhler M, 2010. Damping identification in buildings from
earthquake records. SMIP12 SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS.
G. Boscato, S. Russo (2009). Free Vibrations of Pultruded FRP Elements: Mechanical
Characterization, Analysis, and Applications. ASCE Journal of Composite for Construction, 13 (6),
pp. 565-574.
Boscato G. (2011). Dynamic behaviour of GFRP pultruded elements. Published by University of
Nova Gorica Press, P.O. Box 301, Vipavska 13, SI-5001 Nova Gorica, Slovenia. ISBN 978-961-
3611-68-7.
Boscato, G., and Russo, S. Dissipative capacity on FRP spatial pultruded structure, Composite
Structures, 2014; Volume 113(7), p.339–353.
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
rules for buildings. EN1998-1:2004 (E),: Formal Vote Version (Stage 49), 2004.
Gallipoli M.R., Mucciarelli M., Šket-Motnikar B., Zupanćić P., Gosar A., Prevolnik S., Herak M.,
Stipčević J., Herak D., Milutinović Z., Olumćeva T., (2012). Empirical estimates of dynamic
parameters on a large set of European buildings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8, pages: 593
– 607.
Newmark, N.M., Hall, W.J., Earthquake spectra and design, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkeley, California, 1982.

93
4.2. Symbols
Station = output station

COMB = load combination
N Sd = design value of the acting normal force
V2, Sd = design value of the acting shear force in direction 2
V3, Sd = design value of the acting shear force in direction 3
TSd = design value of the acting torsional moment
M 2, Sd = design value of the acting bending moment around axis 2
M 3, Sd = design value of the acting bending moment around axis 3
Shape = cross-section shape

t3 = height of the cross-section
t2 = width of the cross-section
tf = thickness of the flange
tw = thickness of the web
A = area of the cross-section

I t = torsional constant
I 33 = moment of inertia with respect to axis 3
I 22 = moment of inertia with respect to axis 2
AS 2 = shear area in direction 2
AS 3 = shear area in direction 3
W33 = section modulus with respect to axis 3
W22 = section modulus with respect to axis 2
E1 = longitudinal elastic modulus in direction 1
E2 = transverse elastic modulus in direction 2
E3 = transverse elastic modulus in direction 3

94
G12 = shear modulus in direction 1-2
 12 = Poisson ratio in direction 1-2
e = environmental factor (default = 1)
l,ULS = factor related to the long-term effects for ultimate limit states (default = 1) (see Table
5.1)
l ,SLS = factor related to the long-term effects for serviceability limit states (default = 0.3) Table
5.1)
Type of loading  l,SLS  l,ULS
Quasi-permanent loading 0.3 1.0
Cyclic loading (fatigue) 0.5 1.0
Table 5.1 Values of the conversion factor for long-term effects
 f 1,ULS = partial coefficient of the material related to the uncertainty level in the determination
of the material properties for ultimate limit states (default = 1.15) (see Table 5.2)
 f 1,SLS = partial coefficient of the material related to the uncertainty level in the determination of
the material properties for serviceability limit states (default = 1) (see Table 5.2)
 f 2,ULS = partial coefficient of the material related to the brittle behavior for ultimate limit
states (default = 1.3) (see Table 5.2)
 f 2,SLS = partial coefficient of the material related to the brittle behavior for serviceability limit
states (default = 1) (see Table 5.2)
Value of the coefficient of
variation for the material  f 1,ULS  f 1,SLS  f 2,ULS  f 2,SLS
properties Vx
Vx ≤ 0.10 1.10 1.0 1.3 1.0
0.10 < Vx ≤ 0.20 1.15 1.0 1.3 1.0
Table 5.2 Values of the partial coefficient of the material
 Rd = partial coefficient that takes into account the uncertainties related to the mechanical
model (default = 1.11)
t = target time for long-term deformations verifications (default = 0) (see Table 5.3)

95
Structural type t (years)

Temporary structures 10
Ordinary structures 50
Table 5.3 Target time for deformation verifications of different structural types
f t ,k = characteristic value of the longitudinal tensile strength of the material (default = 250)
f c ,k = characteristic value of the longitudinal compressive strength of the material (default =

250)
fV ,k = characteristic value of the shear strength of the material (default = 35)
ELc = longitudinal elastic modulus in compression (default = E1 )
ETc = transversal elastic modulus in compression (default = E2 )
c = coefficient used for the stability verifications of double-T profiles (default = 0.65)
Eeff = effective longitudinal elastic modulus (default = E1 )
Geff = effective shear modulus (default = G12 )
n = number of holes (default = 0)
d = diameter of holes (default = 0)

t = thickness of the profile (default = 0)
K c = multiplicative coefficient of the length of the member, for stability verifications in
compression (default = 1) (see Table 5.4)
1st extremity support 2nd extremity

Kc
condition support condition
Fixed Free 2
Hinged Hinged 1
Fixed Hinged 0.8
Fixed Fixed 0.7
Table 5.4 Values of coefficient K c for single structural members. For members of a frame the
value of K c should be evaluated as indicated in Eurocode 3
z q = coordinate of the point of application of the load with respect to the center of gravity of
the cross-section (default = t3/2)
K f = multiplicative coefficient of the length of the member, for stability verifications in flexure
(unbraced length of the member = K f  L ) (default = 1)
C1 = coefficient used for the flexural stability verifications of double-T profiles (default = 1.13)

96
C2 = coefficient used for the flexural stability verifications of double-T profiles (default = 0.45)
C3 = coefficient used for the flexural stability verifications of double-T profiles (default = 1)
k f 2 = coefficient used for the flexural stability verifications of box and pipe profiles (default =
1)
Static scheme = static scheme for the computation of the deflection (default = c)
F = value of the applied force for the computation of the deflection (default = 0)
q = value of the applied distributed load for the computation of the deflection (default = 0)
a = distance between the points of application of the load and the extremities of the beam, for
the computation of the deflection (default = 0)
ULS = conversion factor for ultimate limit states
 SLS = conversion factor for serviceability limit states
 f ,ULS = partial coefficient of the material for ultimate limit states
 f ,SLS = partial coefficient of the material for serviceability limit states
f t ,d ,ULS = design value of the longitudinal tensile strength, for ultimate limit states
f t ,d ,SLS = design value of the longitudinal tensile strength, for serviceability limit states
Anet = net area of the cross-section with holes
Nt ,Rd ,ULS = design value of the tensile strength of the profile
f c ,d ,ULS = design value of the compressive strength of the material
N c,Rd ,ULS = design value of the compressive strength of the profile
M 2,Rd ,ULS = design value of the flexural strength of the profile for flexure around axis 2
M 3,Rd ,ULS = design value of the flexural strength of the profile for flexure around axis 3
fV ,Rd = design value of the shear strength of the material
V2,Rd ,ULS = design value of the shear strength of the profile in direction 2
V3,Rd ,ULS = design value of the shear strength of the profile in direction 3
L = length of the member

M 0 = value of the banding moment at the beginning of the member

97
M A = value of the banding moment at 1/4 of the length of the member
M B = value of the banding moment at 1/2 of the length of the member
M C = value of the banding moment at 3/4 of the length of the member
M 1 = value of the banding moment at the end of the member
f 
axial
loc,k f = critical stress of the flanges, for stability verifications of compressed double-T
profiles
kc = coefficient used for the stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles
f 
axial
loc,k w = critical stress of the web, for stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles
f locaxial
,d = local critical stress, for stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles
Nloc,Rd = design value of the compressive force that causes local instability of a double-T profile
N Eul = Euler buckling load
 = slenderness, used for the stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles

 = coefficient used for the stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles
k = coefficient used for the stability verifications of compressed double-T profiles
N c ,Rd 2 = design value of the force that causes buckling of a compressed double-T profile
Nc,Rd 2,glob = buckling load taking into account shear deformability
R = coefficient used in the elements of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D11, f = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate
D11,w = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

98
N 
x ,cr
SS
f ,box
= local buckling load of the flange of a box-section profile
N  SS
x ,cr w,box = local buckling load of the web of a box-section profile
N  SS
x ,cr f ,C = local buckling load of the flange of a C-section profile
N  SS
x ,cr w,C = local buckling load of the web of a C-section profile
N  SS
x ,cr f , L = local buckling load of the flange of a L-section profile
N  SS
x ,cr w, L = local buckling load of the web of a L-section profile
Nc,Rd 2,loc = design value of the local buckling strength
k f = coefficient used for the stability verifications of double-T profiles subjected to bending
f flex
loc,k w = value of the critical stress of the web of double-T profiles subjected to bending
f locflex,d = design value of the stress that causes local buckling of a double-T profile subjected to
bending
M loc,Rd = design value of the bending moment that causes local instability of a double-T profile
subjected to bending
J  = warping constant of a double-T profile
M FT = critical bending moment for flexural-torsional buckling of double-T profile
FT = coefficient used in flexural-torsional buckling verifications of double-T profiles
 FT = coefficient used in flexural-torsional buckling verifications of double-T profiles
 FT = coefficient used in flexural-torsional buckling verifications of double-T profiles
M Rd 2 = design value of the critical bending moment for double-T profiles
M max = maximum value of the bending moment in a member
M m = mean value of the bending moment in a member
M eq = equivalent bending moment
Cb = coefficient used in flexural stability verifications
Lb = unbraced length of a member subjected to bending

99
M Rd 2,glob = design value of the global buckling strength of a member subjected to bending
N 
x ,cr
SS
f ,box
= buckling load of the flange of a box-section profile subjected to bending
N  SS
x ,cr w,box = buckling load of the web of a box-section profile subjected to bending
N  SS
x ,cr f ,C = buckling load of the flange of a C-section profile subjected to bending
N  SS
x ,cr w,C = buckling load of the web of a C-section profile subjected to bending
M Rd 2,loc = design value of the local buckling strength of a member subjected to bending
K = coefficient used for the stability verifications of members subjected to shear

fV ,loc,k = characteristic value of the tangential stress that causes local buckling in the web panel
VRd 2 = design value of the shear force that causes local buckling of the member
 = coefficient used for the computation of the warping constant of C-section profiles
J  ,C = warping constant of C-section profiles
M Rd 2,glob,C = design value of the bending moment that causes global buckling of C-section
profiles
N c,Rd 2,comp = design value of the buckling strength, for compression and flexure stability
verifications
M Rd 2,comp = design value of the buckling strength, for compression and flexure and shear and
flexure stability verifications
N Eul , 2 = Euler buckling load, for stability verifications of member subjected to axial force and
bending moment
E t  = creep coefficient for axial strains

G t  = creep coefficient for shear strains
EL t  = long-term value of the longitudinal elastic modulus
Gt  = long-term value of the shear modulus
f c ,d ,SLS = design value of the compressive strength, for serviceability limit states
fV ,Rd ,SLS = design value of the shear strength, for serviceability limit states

100
To facilitate the reader and the designer much of the symbology adopted is equal to that of CNR-
DT205/2007.
4.3. Verification’s functions

V1= tensile stress (ULS)
V2= compressive stress (ULS)
V3= flexural stress 22 (ULS)
V4= flexural stress 33 (ULS)
V5= flexure 22 - compression stress (ULS)
V6= flexure 22 - tension stress (ULS)
V7= flexure 33 - compression stress (ULS)
V8= flexure 22 - tension stress (ULS)
V9= shear 2 stress (ULS)
V10= shear 3 stress (ULS)
V11= flexure 33 - shear 2 stress (ULS)
V12= flexure 22 - shear 3 stress (ULS)
V13= torsional stress (ULS)
V14= global buckling - compression (ULS)
V15= local buckling - compression (ULS)
V16= global buckling - flexure (ULS)
V17= local buckling - flexure (ULS)
V18= shear buckling (ULS)
V19= buckling - compression and flexure (ULS)
V20= buckling - shear and flexure (ULS)
V21= tensile stress (SLS)
V22= compressive stress (SLS)
V23= shear 2 stress (SLS)
V24= shear 3 stress (SLS)
V25= flexural stress 22 (SLS)
V26= flexural stress 33 (SLS)

101
V27= torsional stress (SLS)

V28= axial force and flexure 22 stress (SLS)
V29= axial force and flexure 33 stress (SLS)
V30 = maximum deflection (SLS)
4.4. References
Bank LC. Composites for construction-structural design with FRP materials, John Wiley & Sons,
NJ, 2006.
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
Kollar L.P., Local Buckling of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Composite Structural Members with Open
and Closed Cross Section. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2003. 129: 1503-1513.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules. ENV 1993-1-1: 1992. Incorporating
Corrigenda February 2006 and March 2009.
SAP2000 Advanced v. 10.1.2. Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, Inc., 1995
University Ave, Berkeley, CA.
Tarjan, G., Sapkas, A. and Kollar, L.P. Local Web Buckling of Composite (FRP) Beams. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 29, No. 10/ 2010.
Tarjan, G., Sapkas, A. and Kollar, L.P. Stability Analysis of Long Composite Plates with
Restrained Edges Subjected to Shear and Linearly Varying Loads, J. of Reinf. Plastics and Comp.,
Vol. 29, No. 9/ 2010.

102
The use of FRP (Fibre Reinforced Polymer) material in the structural engineering field is by now
current practice and supported by theoretical studies as well as many applications and constructions.
FRP material is widely accepted in the strengthening of existing structures (made by reinforced
concrete, steel, wood and masonry) but not yet commonly used for new buildings even if some
recent all-FRP constructions, in particular built with FRP members made by pultrusion process, are
very promising.
The study of the structural behaviour of pultruded FRP members, especially in the case of static
loads, has been widely developed. Instead, for what concerns the dynamic response, very few
experimental and analytical research projects have been proposed.
The issue is particularly interesting because of the mechanical characteristics of pultruded FRP
material.
The elastic-brittle constitutive law with anisotropic mechanical behaviour imposes some specific
precautions, while the high durability, the low density of 1700-1900 kg/m3 and the relatively high
values of strength suggest its potential and promising application also in seismic zones.
The dynamic properties of pultruded FRP material are characterized by high periods of vibration,
low frequency and a spontaneous dissipative capacity of the dynamic actions due to its low density.
THE AIM OF THIS MANUAL IS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE DESIGN OF PULTRUDED FRP
STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC LOADING.

FRP Structural Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRP Structural Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Giosue' Boscato, Carlo Casalegno, Salvatore Russo

DESIGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC ZONE

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

The development of the manual is the following:

Chapter 1 (pp. 6 - 20), INTRODUCTION, provides a general background on FRP pultruded

Chapter 3 (pp. 36 - 87), EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION, provides a calculation example of a FRP

In Chapter 4 (pp. 88 - 94), FINAL EVALUATION FOR DEISGN OF FRP STRUCTURES IN

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Figure 1.1 "I" FRP pultruded open shape

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

1.2. Materials and manufacturing

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

a symmetric or asymmetric open cross-section, a single closed cross-section or a multicellular

Figure 1.2 Pultrusion process (courtesy of TopGlass)

Reinforcing fibre Tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Mechanical properties Notations Range values

Properties Notation Value

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Properties Test method Notation Value

1.3. Normative, design guidelines and technical references

 EN 13706-1:2002 Reinforced plastic composites – Specification for pultruded profiles – Part 1:

 EN 13706-2:2002 Reinforced plastic composites – Specification for pultruded profiles – Part 2:

 EN 13706-3:2002 Reinforced plastic composites – Specification for pultruded profiles – Part 3:

 EN-ISO 14125:1998 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of flexural properties

 EN-ISO 14126:1999 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of compressive

 EN-ISO 14129:1997 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of the in-plane shear

 EN-ISO 14130:1997 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites. Determination of apparent interlaminar

 EN 16245:2013 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites – Part 1-5: Declaration of raw material

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

 P. K. Mallick, Fiber-reinforced composites, Marcel Dekker Ltd., New York, 1993

 Russo, S. Strutture in composito. Sperimentazione, teoria e applicazioni, Hoepli, Milano, 2007.

 Boscato G. (2011). Dynamic behaviour of GFRP pultruded elements. Published by University of

 CICE (Composites in Civil Engineering)

 Advances in Structural Engineering

1.4. Constructions and applications with pultruded FRP profiles

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

FRP spatial frame, Cogollo house in Vicenza (Italy)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

FRP auxiliary floor in Verona (Italy)

Figure 1.4 Auxiliary floor, Verona, Italy, 2006 (measures in metres)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Structural rehabilitation of an historic pedestrian bridge

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

FRP pedestrian bridge in Prato (Italy)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Spatial all-FRP truss structure

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

Figure 1.8 All-FRP sub-structures; L’Aquila (2010)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

2. SYNTHESIS OF BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS

1. Single Degree of Freedom (SDoF)

2. Multiple Degrees of Freedom (MDoF)

3. Natural period of vibration

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

1- Single Degree of Freedom (SDoF)

mu(t )  frictions inertia force (product of mass time its

The equation of dynamic equilibrium is:

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice

2a - Multiple Degrees of Freedom (MDoF)

K may be determined by imposing a unit