See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236121475

Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor

buildings

Article in Structures & Buildings · January 2009

DOI: 10.1680/stbu.2009.162.3.169

CITATIONS READS

28 88

3 authors:

Juan Carlos Vielma Alex H. Barbat

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
71 PUBLICATIONS 200 CITATIONS 344 PUBLICATIONS 2,726 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sergio Oller
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
208 PUBLICATIONS 2,776 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of the siesmic parameters of RC structures with re-entrants (plan-irregular

buildings). View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Alex H. Barbat
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 18 October 2016
Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Structures and Buildings 162
June 2009 Issue SB3
Pages 169–182
doi: 10.1680/stbu.2009.162.3.169

Paper 800041
Received 13/05/2008
Accepted 27/11/2008
Juan Vielma Alex H. Barbat Sergio Oller
Keywords: buildings, structures & Professor, Departamento de Professor, Technical Professor, Technical
design/codes of practice & Estructuras. Barquisimeto, University of Catalonia, University of Catalonia,
standards/seismic engineering Univesidad Centroccidental Barcelona, Spain Barcelona, Spain
Lisandro Alvarado, Venezuela

Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings

J. Vielma MSc, PhD, A. H. Barbat PhD and S. Oller PhD

The codes used in seismic design of waffled-slab floors columns-and-slabs RC buildings, has not been studied at
buildings (WSFB), such as the Spanish NCSE-02 large. 11,12 These last classes of buildings are frequent in Spain
earthquake-resistant design code, assign them restricted and in other European countries (e.g. Turkey) or Latin America
ductility, utilise linear structural analysis based on modal (e.g. Ecuador, Dominican Republic and Mexico), where their
analysis, but also consider the structural ductility waffled-slab floor version is used. It is worth mentioning that
concept. Uncertainties arise whenever these codes are the Uniform Building Code (UBC)-97 13 and International
applied to the special case of buildings with waffled-slab Building Code (IBC)-2003 14 codes, as well as the Eurocode 8, 15
floors, the ductility of which is doubtful. In many cases, do not make any reference to waffled-slab floors as possible
during earthquakes, buildings with restricted ductility structural elements to be used in the earthquake-resistant
are unable to reach the ductility values assumed in the design of buildings.
design process, although they may exhibit adequate
values of overstrength. This paper therefore studies Adequacy of the response of a structure to a given seismic
typical WSFB by applying static incremental non-linear threat can be evaluated, in a simplified way, through
analysis procedures (pushover analysis) in order to examination of two important non-linear response
calculate their actual structural ductility and characteristics
overstrength values. Fragility curves corresponding to
different damage states and damage probability matrices (a) the maximum ductility value reached by such buildings
are also calculated and compared with those of moment- during a strong ground motion
resisting frame buildings (MRFB) in order to obtain (b) the reduction factor applied to design spectrum ordinates
useful conclusions for earthquake resistant design. One in order to calculate the seismic design forces, this factor
of the most relevant conclusions of this article is that the being closely related to the overstrength.
use of a better confinement and of ductile steel can only
improve the seismic behaviour of MRFB but not that of
WSFB. According to the Norma de Construction Sismorresistente
(NCSE)-02 Spanish earthquake-resistant design code, 16
1. INTRODUCTION waffled-slab floors buildings (WSFB) have restricted ductility
Studies performed recently in areas of Spain with low-to- values of two. This value is set based on the well-known
moderate seismic hazard1 reveal that seismic vulnerability is premise that this structural typology has low capacity for
high in such areas and, consequently, that their seismic risk is energy dissipation. At the same time, apart from the UBC-97
significant. This is mainly owing to the typology of the and
existing buildings, most of them with unreinforced masonry IBC-2003, the Eurocode 8 and NCSE-02 Spanish code do not
structures, designed and built without the consideration of any refer directly to overstrength values, which are very important
earthquake-resistant criteria. 2,3 Moreover, most of the existing for determining the response reduction factors. 17,18
reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are not moment-resisting
frames, but structures with waffled-slab floors. 4 It therefore With these observations as a starting point, the main objective
appears to be useful to perform more detailed studies of this of this paper is to study the typical WSFB seismic behaviour by
typology of buildings in order to establish if it is reasonable to calculating their actual structural ductility and overstrength
recommend their use in seismic areas. values, using an incremental non-linear static analysis
procedure (pushover analysis). In this simplified analysis,
The emergence of performance-based procedures for the design lateral forces corresponding to the first vibration mode shape
and retrofit of earthquake-resistant buildings 5–7 has sparked are gradually applied and global structural damage indexes are
research on the non-linear static response of buildings. 8 used to determine the ultimate drift values of the buildings.
Among the most studied structural typologies is that of the Drift values corresponding to the yielding point are obtained
moment-resisting frame buildings (MRFB). 9,10 However, the by using the idealised bilinear form of the capacity curve
non-linear response of restricted ductility buildings, that is, proposed by Park. 19 The benefits of the ductility of the steel
buildings expressly designed to have low ductility, including reinforcements and of the longitudinal and transversal

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 169
 confinements are also evaluated using the building pushover
response.

With the objective of elucidating how structural typology and

design have an influence on the global response of building
structures, three buildings with different characteristics were
designed and analysed. The first building has waffled-slab
floors and has been designed with a reduction factor of two.
The second building, has moment-resisting RC frames, it is
designed according to the Instruccion de Hormigon Estructura
(EHE) 20 and NCSE-02 Spanish codes, and has a ductility of
four. Finally, the third building is also designed using moment-
resisting RC frames, but according to the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 21 specifications in order to fulfil ductility
requirements of eight. The capacity curve of the WSFB is
compared with those of the two MRFB. Fragility curves and
damage probability matrices are also obtained in order to
compare the probability the WSFB and MRFB exceed different
predefined damage states. Preliminary conclusions on the
suitability of using WSFB in seismic areas are finally given.
(a)

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDINGS STUDIED

2.1. Building with waffled-slab floors

The WSFB slabs have ribs oriented in two orthogonal
directions and a solid thin RC layer in the upper face. The
configuration of the ribs generates square spaces on the lower
face of the slab, often formed by the use of metal or fibreglass
pans or filled with hollow lightweight blocks (see Figure 1).

Slabs bear directly on columns; in order to avoid stress

concentration, they have a solid RC element of transition,
called solid head, between the ribs and columns (see Figures
2(a) and 2(b)). Solid heads are reinforced in two directions, but (b)
also have additional reinforcement aiming to avoid the
punching failure at the proximity of the joints. Figure 2. (a) Typical waffled-slab floor RC building
constructed in Spain; (b) WFSB structural components
(viewed from below)
The WSFB under study has three stories: the first one is 4.5 m
high, whereas the other two are 3.0 m high; this is a typical
configuration for a building whose ground floor is intended for
commercial use. Slab thickness is 30 cm. A typical plan of this
building is shown in Figure 3. Reinforcement details of this 2.2. RC moment-resisting frame buildings
building are provided in the Appendix. Two RC buildings were designed with the objective of studying
the MRFB response: one according to the EHE and NCSE-02
Spanish codes; the second one according to ACI-318 and IBC-
2003 codes. Buildings have one-way ribbed slabs and seismic
design criteria are added to increase the cross-section size of
the columns, thereby yielding a structure with strong columns
and weak beams. Further information about the geometry and
reinforcement details of buildings can be seen in the Appendix.
The characteristics of the materials of the three buildings are

(a) compressive concrete cylinder strength: 25 N/mm2 (EHE)

and 28 N/mm2 (ACI-318)
(b) axial and shear yield strength of steel: 500 N/mm2 (EHE)
and 525 N/mm2 (ACI-318).

2.3. Seismic design of the buildings

Seismic design of the buildings was performed using the
Figure 1. View of a waffled-slab floor in construction process inelastic spectrum prescribed by the NCSE-02 Spanish code for
stiff soils and basic acceleration of 0.23 g (see Figure 4).

170 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
 Seismic actions were
1 2 3 4 5
600 600 600 600 calculated from the three-
dimensional (3D) modal
D
analysis, in which three
degrees of freedom for level
were considered. Table 1
500

shows modal periods for the

three buildings studied.
C

3. PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS
500

Waffle Buildings designed according

slab
to the linear elastic methods
outlined in the seismic design
B

codes have been studied

using a push-over analysis. A
y single equivalent frame was
500

modelled for each building.

For the WSFB the equivalent
A

frame is defined following

the recommendations
x outlined in the ACI-318 code,
with three main assumptions.
Figure 3. Plan view of the WSFB (dimensions in cm)
(a) An equivalent frame is a
two-dimensional (2D)
frame defined by cutting
3D building along lines midway between columns. For
6·0 lateral load analyses, the frame must include all floors.
Elastic spectrum (b) Only 75% of the factored live load is recommended.
Inelastic spectrum (µ ⫽ 2)
5·0 (c) Critical zones are defined between the centrelines of the
Inelastic spectrum (µ ⫽ 4)
columns and the face of the solid heads. The critical zone is
Acceleration: m/s2

4·0
considered as the thickened section of the floor slab, and
3·0 its equivalent moment of inertia I eq is obtained by

2·0 I
1 I eq ¼
1·0
1
(c2 =l2 )

0·0
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
T: s
where I is the solid head moment of inertia, c2 is the column
width in the transverse direction and l2 is that of the solid
Figure 4. Elastic and inelastic spectrum used to perform head; this procedure takes into account the shear failure in the
dynamic analyses critical zone. The equivalent slab moment of inertia can be
calculated from its gross section, obtaining an equivalent depth
of 19.45 cm. Details of the equivalent frame are shown in
Figure 5.

Period: s Non-linear static analysis with force control was performed

using PLCd 22 finite element code. 23,24 PLCd is a finite element
Mode WSFB MRFB MRFB code that works with 2D and 3D solid geometries as well as
(EHE/NCSE-02) (ACI-318/IBC-2003)
with prismatic, reduced to one-dimensional (1D) members. This
code provides a solution combining both numerical precision
1 0.93 0.45 0.41
and reasonable computational costs. 25,26 It can deal with
2 0.91 0.44 0.38
3 0.82 0.39 0.37 kinematics and material non-linearities. It uses various 3D
4 0.27 0.16 0.30 constitutive laws to predict the material behaviour (elastic,
5 0.26 0.16 0.29 visco-elastic, damage, damage-plasticity, etc. 27 ) with different
6 0.23 0.14 0.23 yield surfaces to control their evolution (Von-Mises,
7 0.12 0.09 0.22
Mohr–Coulomb, improved Mohr–Coulomb, Drucker–Prager,
8 0.11 0.09 0.20
9 0.10 0.08 0.17 etc. 28 ). Newmark’s method 29 is used to perform the dynamic
analysis. A more detailed description of the code can be found
Table 1. Periods of the modes considered in buildings analyses in Mata et al. 25,26 The main numerical features included in the
code to deal with composite materials are

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 171
 Equivalent
So, the general non-linear constitutive behaviour is included in
depth the geometrically exact non-linear kinematics formulation for
Frame
axis beams proposed by Simo, 25 considering an intermediate curved
reference configuration between the straight reference beam
M
be idw and the current configuration. The displacement-based method
co twe ay
lum en is used for solving the resulting non-linear problem. Plane
ns
cross-sections remain plane after the deformation of the
Solid head structure; therefore, no cross-sectional warping is considered,
Column avoiding including additional warping variables in the
formulation or iterative procedures to obtain corrected cross-
sectional strain fields. An appropriated cross-sectional analysis
z is applied for obtaining the cross-sectional forces and
y x moments 25 and the consistent tangential tensors in the
linearised problem. Thermodynamically consistent constitutive
Figure 5. Details of equivalent frame used in the analysis of laws are used in describing the material behaviour for these
the WSFB beam elements, which allows obtaining a more rational
estimation of the energy dissipated by the structures. The
simple mixing rule for composition of the materials is also
(a) classical and serial/parallel mixing theory used to describe
considered in modelling materials for these elements, which are
the behaviour of composite components 30
composed by several simple components. Special attention is
(b) anisotropy mapped space theory enables the code to
paid to obtain the structural damage index capable of
consider materials with a high level of anisotropy, without
describing the load-carrying capacity of the structure.
the associated numerical problems 24,31
(c) Fibre–matrix debonding which reduces the composite
According to the mixing theory, in a structural element coexist
strength due to the failure of the reinforced–matrix
N different components, all of them subject to the same strain;
interface. 32
therefore, strain compatibility is forced among the material
components. Free energy density and dissipation of the
Experimental evidence shows that inelasticity in beam composite are obtained as the weighted sum of the free energy
elements can be formulated in terms of cross-sectional densities and dissipation of the components, respectively.
quantities 33 and, therefore, the beam’s behaviour can be Weighting factors k q are the participation volumetric fraction
described by means of concentrated models, sometimes called of each compounding substance, k q ¼ V q =V , which are
plastic hinge models, which localise all the inelastic behaviour obtained as the quotient between the qth component volume,
at the ends of the beam by means of ad hoc force– V q , and the total volume, V. 23–26
displacement or moment–curvature relationships. 34 In the
formulation used in this computer program, however, the Discretisation of frames was performed with finite elements
procedure consists of obtaining the constitutive relationship at whose lengths vary depending on the column and beam zones
cross-sectional level by integrating on a selected number of with special confinement requirements, as can be seen in
points corresponding to fibres directed along the beam’s axis. 35 Figure 6. These confinement zones were designed according to

75
300

150
150
300

150
188
225
450

113

120 360 120 120 360 120 120 360 120 120 360 120

600 600 600 600

Figure 6. Typical discretisation of the frames (dimensions in cm)

172 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
the general dimensions of the structural elements, the
˜u
diameters of the longitudinal steel, the clear of spans and the 2 ì¼
˜y
storey heights. Frame elements are discretised into equal
thickness layers with different composite materials,
characterised by their longitudinal and transversal where ˜u is the ultimate drift obtained from the idealised
reinforcement ratio (see Figure 7). Transversal reinforcement capacity curve, and the overstrength RR of the building, defined
benefits are included by means of the procedure proposed by as
Mander et al. 36
Vy
3 RR ¼
The pushover analysis has been performed by applying a set of Vd
lateral forces corresponding to the seismic actions in the first
vibration mode shape. Lateral forces are gradually increased
starting from zero, passing through the value inducing where V d is the design base shear and V y is the yielding base
transition from elastic to plastic behaviours and, finally shear (see Figure 8). The design base shear has been calculated
reaching the value which corresponds to the ultimate drift (i.e. using the procedure prescribed in most of the main seismic
the point at which the structure can no longer support any codes, applying the criteria of the square root of the sum of
additional load and collapses). Before the structure is subjected squares (SRSS) of the values of the forces obtained from modal
to the lateral loads simulating the seismic action, it is first analysis. Next, the design base shear is normalised respecting
loaded with the gravity loads. the total seismic weight of the structure. Overstrength R R is
similar to a safety factor applied in the design.
The non-linear static response obtained by way of finite
element techniques is used to generate the idealised elasto- 4. WSFB NON-LINEAR RESPONSE
plastic behaviour shown in Figure 8, which has a secant The WSFB is designed according to the NCSE-02 and EHE
segment from its origin to a point (˜ y , V y ), V y being the 75% Spanish codes for a structural ductility equal to two. Its
of maximum base shear. 19 The second segment, representing capacity curve is calculated using a mechanical model similar
the branch of plastic behaviour, is obtained by finding the to the equivalent frame defined in the ACI-318 code and it is
intersection of the aforementioned segment with the horizontal shown in Figure 9(a). Analysis is performed by means of the
corresponding to the maximum base shear. The use of the area finite element method and using damage and plasticity
compensation procedure guarantees that the energies dissipated constitutive models, as well as the mixing theory. 22–25,27,37 To
by the ideal and the modelled systems are equal, leading to control the energy dissipation and ensure the correct behaviour
determine ˜y and ˜u (see Figure 8) and, consequently, it is of the structure, appropriate mean values of strength and
possible to obtain the ductility value. In Figure 8, V d is the facture energy were used for each compounding material (i.e.
design base shear. steel and concrete).

The variables which characterise in a simplified way the Structural ductility for the exterior frame is obtained from the
quality of the building seismic behaviour are the structural yielding drift value ˜y , and the ultimate drift ˜u , which can be
ductility, ì, defined as seen in the idealised capacity curve of Figure 9(a)

Composite 1
Composite 2
Composite 3

Ordinary
confined zone

Specially
confined zone

Composite 4
Composite 5
Composite 6
Concrete Steel Mechanical
reinforcement model

Figure 7. Scheme of frame elements

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 173
 ductility values in the NCSE-
02 earthquake-resistant code

)
re
should be revised.

tu
∆

uc
Nevertheless, it is necessary

s tr
Ve

ed
to point that WSFB exhibit

ag
s

am
am high overstrength level.
be

-d
in Idealised

on
e

(n
ag elasto-plastic form
m Figure 9(b) shows the
ss
ne B d a C
Vy i th evolution of the damage
tif f

sw s
mn
ls

e s l u
co index for the studied waffled-
na

iffn nd
St sa
igi

m
Or

e a slab floor building,

in b Capacity curve
m age quantifying stiffness loss in
Vd d a
w ith the structural elements
ess
ffn
A Sti KC ⫽ (1 ⫺ DC)K0 V resisting loads or the loads
KB ⫽ (1 ⫺ DB)K0 leading to failure. This index
K0
O ∆y ∆u is calculated using the finite
Drift: ∆
element program PLCd with a
constitutive damage and
Figure 8. Scheme for determining the damage index of a structural element plasticity model that enables
correlation of damage with
lateral displacements 30,38,39

0·9 kP in k
4 D¼1

Yield base shear coefficient, Vy/P ⫽ 0·75 B kP in
0k
Base shear coefficient: V/W

0·6 RR ⫽ 0·75/0·39 ⫽ 1·92

where kP in k and kP in
0 k are the norm of current and elastic

Design base shear coefficient, Vd/W ⫽ 0·39

values of the internal forces vectors, respectively. Initially, the
material remains elastic and D ¼ 0, but when all the energy of
0·3 the material has been dissipated kP in k ! 0 and D ! 1.
µ ⫽ 2·91/1·85 ⫽ 1·57

A
Figure 9(b) indicates the formation of the first micro-cracks in
∆y ⫽ 1·85 ∆u ⫽ 2·91
0 the structure (point A) which increases until plastic hinges
0·0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7 3·0
Roof drift %: ∆/H
appear at the ends of beams, expanding until the appearance of
(a) cracks in the columns (point B) and then hinges appear at the
1·00
ends of the columns. Finally, the ultimate drift threshold is
reached (point C). It is of scientific and practical interest to
C correlate the capacity curve of Figure 9(a) with the damage
0·75 curve of Figure 9(b). In the case of WSFB, it can be seen how
the global damage index of the structure corresponding to the
Damage

0·50 B ultimate drift is of 77.5%.

The WSFB low ductility response can be attributed to the

0·25
formation of plastic hinges in the transition points between the
A solid head and the slab ribs at the first floor. Slab elements are
0·20 1·85 2·91
0·00 subjected to bending induced by gravity loads, as well as to the
0·0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7 3·0
Roof drift %: ∆/H
demands of seismic forces; hence, the zones requiring special
(b) reinforcement are those closest to the slab–column node and
to the middle of the span, where the greatest bending moments
Figure 9. (a) Idealised bilinear capacity curve; (b) evolution of frequently appear. Efficient confinement in the central slab
the global damage index of the WSFB exterior frame zone is, however, technically complicated. This suggests the
existence, during earthquakes, of a possible mechanism of
structural failure, at the transition zone between the solid slab
and the ribs, and consequently, a low level of structure
˜u 2:91
ì¼ ¼ ¼ 1:57 ductility (see Figure 10).
˜y 1:85
5. MRFB NON-LINEAR RESPONSE
The value obtained is very low, even when compared with The capacity curve of the MRFB designed according to the EHE
design value ì ¼ 2 foreseen in the NCSE-02 Spanish code for and NCSE-02 Spanish codes is shown in Figure 11(a). The
V
this structural type. The overstrength is: RR ¼ Vyd ¼ 1:92. curve clearly illustrates how this structural type is capable of
Ductility values calculated for this structural class are similar sustaining a stable ductile response, which is reflected in the
to those obtained for flat slab buildings 12 and suggest that the high value of the ultimate drift. Based on the idealised bilinear

174 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
 0·9
B Yield base shear coefficient, Vy/P ⫽ 0·55 C

Base shear coefficient: V/W

RR ⫽ 0·55/0·29 ⫽ 1·90
0·6

Design base shear coefficient, Vp/W ⫽ 0·29

µ ⫽ 4·19/0·81 ⫽ 5·17
0·3
A

∆y ⫽ 0·81 ∆u ⫽ 4·21
0·0
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
Roof drift %: ∆/H
(a)
1·00

C
0·75

Damage
0·50
B

0·25

A
0·15 0·81 4·19
0·00
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
Roof drift %: ∆/H
(b)

Figure 11. (a) Idealised capacity curve; (b) global damage index
evolution for the MRFB external frame designed according to
the EHE and NCSE-02 guidelines

same time, the details prescribed in the ACI-318 enable a

greater dissipation capacity.

The non-linear response of the ACI-318 moment-resisting

frame building is typical for RC low-rise buildings, which
generally undergo plastic hinges at the base of their ground
floor columns. This general tendency stems from the fact that
designing buildings with strong columns and weak beams is
not trivial, primarily owing to the predominance of
Figure 10. Development of the plastic hinges at the frame gravitational loads on the beams, which ultimately require
collapse
larger cross-sections than those of the columns. Figure 12(b)
shows that in this case the structure maximum global damage
index is 93%.

curve of Figure 11(a), a ductility of 5.17 is obtained; this is a The above mentioned procedure has been validated by means
higher value than the one considered in the design, which is 4. of non-linear dynamic analyses. The dynamic procedure
This means that MRFB has a ductile response to seismic forces, consists of applying sinusoidal ground acceleration with a peak
as well as an adequate overstrength. Figure 11(b) shows the value scaled with respect to gravity acceleration and increased
evolution of the global damage index for this type of building, until yielding is reached. Results obtained shows that the static
with a maximum damage index of 82% corresponding to the non-linear procedure allows for accurate calculation of
ultimate roof drift. displacements, and that the non-linear dynamic response of the
WSFB under study shows a clear pinching behaviour, see
Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show the capacity curve and the Figure 13(b).
evolution of the damage, respectively, for the external frame of
the building designed according to the ACI-318. The main 6. FRAGILITY CURVES AND DAMAGE PROBABILITY
difference between this building and the former is, on the one MATRICES
hand, that the Spanish NCSE-02 earthquake-resistant code In order to evaluate the non-linear behaviour of the buildings,
limits to four the ductility for this class of buildings to four the performance points were calculated by applying the N2
and, on the other hand, that this code requires less transversal procedure. 40 The performance points are defined as the
and longitudinal reinforcement than the ACI-318 (2005). At the intersection of the capacity spectrum (obtained from the

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 175
 0·3 2
Yield base shear coefficient, Vy/W ⫽ 0·26
B
Base shear coefficient: V/W
C
1
0·2
RR ⫽ 0·26/0·13 ⫽ 2·00

Acc: 1/g
0
Design base shear coefficient, Vd/W ⫽ 0·13

0·1
A µ ⫽ 2·41/0·39 ⫽ 6·18 ⫺1

∆y ⫽ 0·39 ∆u ⫽ 2·41
0·0 ⫺2
0·0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7 3·0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T: s
Roof drift %: ∆/H
(a)
(a)
1·00
C 1 200 000
Dynamic analysis
Pseudo-static analysis
800 000
0·75

Base shear: N
B 400 000
Damage

0·50 0

⫺400 000
0·25
⫺800 000
A
0·07 0·39 2·41 ⫺1 200 000
0·00 ⫺450 ⫺300 ⫺150 0 150 300 450
0·0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7 3·0 Roof drift: mm
Roof drift %: ∆/H (b)
(b)
750 000
Dynamic analysis
Figure 12. (a) Idealised capacity curve and (b) global damage Pseudo-static analysis
500 000
index evolution of the external frame of the MRFB designed
Base shear: N

according to ACI-318 (2005) code 250 000

capacity curve) with the inelastic demand spectrum (obtained ⫺250 000
from the elastic design spectrum). Only two cases are included ⫺500 000
because the non-linear behaviours of the MRFB designed
according to EHE and NCSE-02 are very similar to that of the ⫺750 000
⫺300 ⫺200 ⫺100 0 100 200 300
one designed according to ACI-318. The seismic demand is Roof drift: mm
obtained from the elastic spectrum prescribed by NCSE (see (c)
Figure 4). Roof drifts are transformed into spectral
displacements through the equation Figure 13. Dynamic response of the two buildings designed
according to the NCSE-02: (a) applied sinusoidal excitation;
(b) WSFB and (c) MRFB
äc
5 Sd ¼
MPF

where Sd is the spectral displacement, äc is the roof drift and

Building Roof drift of the performance point: mm
MPF is the modal participation factor corresponding to first
mode. Values of the spectral displacements obtained for the
WSFB 222.07
performance point are shown in Table 2.
MRFB 120.18

Figures 14 and 15 show the capacity curves of each building

Table 2. Roof drift corresponding to the performance points
together with the stiffness corresponding to initial undamaged of the studied buildings
state, to performance point and to ultimate drift. It can be
observed how close performance and ultimate drift points are
in the case of WSFBs. each level. Severe damage state is identified by a roof drift
which produces a 2.5% of interstorey drift at each level.
Damage thresholds are determined using the of Vision 2000 Finally, the total damage state (collapse) corresponds to the
procedure which expresses the thresholds in function of ultimate roof displacement obtained from the capacity curve.
interstorey drifts. Damage-states thresholds are determined Values of the mean and standard deviation of the roof drift
from both interstorey drift curve and capacity curve. Slight normalised with respect to the building height are shown in
damage state is defined as the roof drift corresponding to the Table 3.
first plastic hinge. The moderate damage state corresponds to
the roof drift for which an interstorey drift of 1% is reached at Fragility curves are obtained by considering a lognormal

176 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
 WSFB MRFB 0·6

Limit state Mean Standard Mean Standard

Base shear coefficient: V/W

deviation deviation
0·4
Slight damage 0.22 0.03 0.16 0.02
Moderate damage 0.67 0.04 0.93 0.05
Severe damage 1.67 0.11 2.06 0.10
0·2
Collapse 2.91 0.16 4.19 0.14 Capacity curve
Original stiffness
Performance point stiffness
Table 3. Mean values and standard deviation of the normalised Ultimate stiffness

roof drift for limit states 0·0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Roof drift: mm

probability density function for the spectral displacements Figure 15. Roof drift corresponding to the performance point
defining damage states of the building with moment- resisting frames (NCSE-02
code)

"   #
1 1 1 Sd 2
6 F ð Sd Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp
ln WSFB MRFB
âds Sd 2ð 2 âds Sd,ds

No damage 0.2% 0.4%

where Sd,ds is the mean value of spectral displacement for Slight 9.4% 40.3%
which the building reaches the damage-state threshold ds and Moderate 24.6% 44.4%
Severe 36.2% 13.9%
âds is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the
Collapse 29.6% 1.0%
spectral displacement for damage state ds . The conditional
probability P(Sd )of reaching or exceeding a particular damage
Table 4. Damage probability matrices for the studied building
state ds , given the spectral displacement Sd , is defined as typologies

ð Sd
7 P ð Sd Þ ¼ F ð Sd Þdð Sd Þ 1·0
Non-damage
0
FD ⫽ Prob. (ED ⬎ edi/Sd ⫽ Sdi)

0·9
0·8 Slight

Figures 16 and 17 show fragility curves calculated for WSFB 0·7

Moderate
and MRFB, respectively. 0·6
Severe
0·5
0·4
Damage probability matrices are obtained by entering the Collapse
0·3
spectral displacement corresponding to the performance point
0·2
into the fragility curves. The values obtained represent the 0·1
exceeding probabilities of a damage state and are given in 0·0
Table 4 for the WSFB and MRFB considered in the analysis. 0·00 0·04 0·08 0·12 0·16 0·20 0·24 0·28 0·32 0·36 0·40
0·02 0·06 0·10 0·14 0·18 0·22 0·26 0·30 0·34 0·38
Spectral displacement Sd: m
Table 4 shows that, for the demand being considered, there is a
high probability that the limited ductility buildings exceed the Figure 16. Fragility curves for WSFB
severe damage state and the collapse state. Severe damage state
exceeding probability is of 36.2% for the WSFB. The collapse

1·0 Non-damage
0·6
FD ⫽ Prob. (ED ⬎ edi/Sd ⫽ Sdi)

0·9
0·8
Base shear coefficient: V/W

Slight
0·7
Moderate
0·4 0·6
Severe
0·5
0·4
Collapse
0·3
0·2
Capacity curve 0·2
Original stiffness
Performance point stiffness 0·1
Ultimate stiffness
0·0
0·0 0·00 0·04 0·08 0·12 0·16 0·20 0·24 0·28 0·32 0·36 0·40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0·02 0·06 0·10 0·14 0·18 0·22 0·26 0·30 0·34 0·38
Roof drift: mm Spectral displacement Sd: m

Figure 14. Roof drift corresponding to WSFB performance Figure 17. Fragility curves for MRFB designed according to the
point Spanish codes

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 177
 probabilities are 29.6% for the WSFB and only about 1% for earthquake-resistant design of structures according to the EHE
the MRFB. and Eurocode 8 specifications, or weldable steel (W) (see Table
5). For both cases, the yielding stresses B 400 and B 500 steel
were considered (see Figure 19).
7. POSSIBILITIES OF IMPROVING THE SEISIMC
RESPONSE OF WSFBS Results of the pushover analysis are shown in Figure 19, which
Figure 18 shows the capacity curves corresponding to all cases reveals that frames reinforced with ductile steel have only a
under study. Design base shears have also been plotted in this slightly more ductile response than do those reinforced with
figure, in which it is evident that each of the three buildings non-ductile steel. Hence, the building global response is
has base shear coefficients greater than the design one, influenced to a much greater extent by the general
indicating that they satisfy this initial design objective. configuration and structural typology chosen than by the
However, overstrength varies dramatically among the three characteristics of the reinforcement steel.
structures. It is interesting to compare the MRFB capacity
curves, which have similar structural typology but are designed Finally, Figure 20 shows the same results obtained for the
with different codes and thus their reduction factors differ. MRFB reinforced with different types of steel. Observe that, in
Both exhibit ductility several times higher than that of the
WSFB while providing satisfactory overstrength.
0·9

Results of the WSFB non-linear analysis raise this question; µ ⫽ 1·48 µ ⫽ 1·57

Base shear coefficient: V/W

µ ⫽ 2·20 µ ⫽ 2·44
can their response be improved at design stage, in order to
reach the ductility values prescribed in the NCSE-02 code 0·6
maintaining the same structural typology? This section
discusses this possibility based on the pushover analysis
performed using the finite element method and comparing 0·3
B 400 W
responses obtained with those corresponding to the MRFB. For B 400 WD
B 500 W
the purpose of studying the influence of the steel type on the B 500 WD
WSFB non-linear response, steels with different mechanical 0·0
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
characteristics are considered. Buildings are calculated by
Roof drift %: ∆/H
considering the reinforcement with either weldable-ductile steel
(WD), whose characteristics make it recommendable for the Figure 19. Capacity curves for the WSFB reinforced with
either ductile steel (WD) or non-ductile steel (W)
Structural type
Moment-resisting frame (µ ⫽ 4)
Waffle slabs
Moment-resisting frame (µ ⫽ 6)
0·8 0·6 µ ⫽ 3·84
µ ⫽ 5·15
Base shear coefficient: V/W

Base shear coefficient: V/W

0·6 µ ⫽ 5·69
0·4 µ ⫽ 4·60

0·4 Design base shear coefficient

Design base shear B 400 W
0·2 B 400 WD
B 500 W
0·2 B 500 WD

0·0 0·0
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0 0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
Roof drift %: ∆/H Roof drift %: ∆/H

Figure 18. Comparison of the non-linear response of the Figure 20. Capacity curve for the MRFB reinforced with steel
three building types under study having different mechanical characteristics

Eurocode 8 EHE

Steel type B C B 400 WD B 500 WD

Yield stress f y : N/mm2 400–600 400–600 400 500

Ultimate stress f s : N/mm2 — — 480 575
Ratio fs /f y > 1.08 > 1.15 and < 1.35 > 1.20 and < 1.35 > 1.15 and < 1.35
Maximum strain åmax : % > 5.0 > 7.5 > 9.0 > 8.0
Ultimate strain, åu : % — — > 20.0 > 16.0

Table 5. Characteristics of the steel recommended by Eurocode 8 and by EHE for the design of ductile reinforced concrete
buildings

178 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
this case, increasing the steel ductility leads to a major increase (e) Structural response of the WSFB cannot be improved using
in structural ductility. better mechanical characteristics of materials or a better
confinement of their members.
8. CONCLUSIONS ( f ) The only possibility of improving the WSFB behaviour is to
(a) The WSFB seismic behaviour has been studied using the add depth beams to in order to increase their lateral
pushover analysis with force control. In order to determine stiffness.
the structure ultimate drift threshold, global damage index
must approximate to a value of 0.8. Yielding drifts of the
structures are obtained using the idealised bilinear capacity ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
curves proposed by Park. This research was partially supported by Fundación Gran
(b) Among the cases studied only the MRFB exhibit sufficient Mariscal de Ayacucho (FUNDAYACUCHO), Universidad
ductility and overstrength to guarantee a stable behaviour, Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado (UCLA); by the European
showing ductility values higher than those of the design. Commission, FP6 project Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and
(c) It has been proved in this paper that WSFB should be Landslides (LESSLOSS) (GOCE-CT-2003-505448); by the
designed for lower ductility levels than those prescribed in Spanish Government: Ministerio de Fomento (C21-06) and
the Spanish seismic code (NCSE-02) because the prescribed Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a, Project Delamination of
design values ( ì ¼ 2) are greater than the obtained from reinforced matrix composites (DECOMAR) (MAT-2003-09768-
numerical simulations ( ì ¼ 1.57). Nevertheless, during C03-02); Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Project HABITAT
earthquakes, WSFB show adequate overstrength. 2030 (PSS-380000-2005-14); Project Seguridad y durabilidad
(d ) It can also be seen that the exceeding probabilities for the de estructuras de construcción (SEDUREC) (CSD2006-00060).
MRFB damage states are lower than those of WSFB. All this support is gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX

Reinforcement details of the three studied buildings

Waffle slabs floors building (EHE/NCSE-02)

8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm
35

35

35

35

35
Hoops Hoops Hoops Hoops Hoops
35 35 35 35 35

8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm 8 Æ 16 mm

Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm
40

40

40

40

40
Hoops Hoops Hoops Hoops Hoops
40 40 40 40 40

14 Æ 25 mm 18 Æ 20 mm 18 Æ 20 mm 18 Æ 20 mm 14 Æ 25 mm
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm
50

50

50

50

50
Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and
crossties crossties crossties crossties crossties
50 50 50 50 50

Dimensions in cm
600 600 600 600

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 21. Details of the equivalent frame of the WSFB designed according to NCSE-02 code

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 179
 Plan view Details of reinforcement

Edge beam Column Top bars

Solid head 8 Æ 10 mm

Bottom bars
70 8 Æ 10 mm

10

70 Ribs Top bars

4 Æ 10 mm
10
Bottom bars
2 Æ 10 mm

70 70 70 70 Dimensions in cm
10 10 10 10 10

Edge beam Ribs reinforcement

2 Æ 16 mm
2 Æ 16 mm
30 2 Æ 12 mm
Æ 6 mm
25
Hoops @ 20 2 Æ 16 mm

Figure 22. Details of the reinforcement of the solid head and waffle slab

Moment-resisting framed building (EHE/NCSE-02)

4 Æ 16 mm
6 Æ 16 mm 6 Æ 16 mm 6 Æ 16 mm 6 Æ 16 mm 6 Æ 16 mm
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm 50
30

30

30

30

30
Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and 4 Æ 16 mm
crossties crossties 30 crossties 30 crossties 30 crossties 30
30 30
Æ 10 mm hoops
4 Æ 20 mm
6 Æ 20 mm 6 Æ 20 mm 8 Æ 20 mm 6 Æ 20 mm 6 Æ 20 mm
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm 55
Æ 10 mm
35

35
35

35
35

Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and 4 Æ 16 mm

crossties crossties Hoops crossties crossties
35 35 35 35 35 30
Æ 10 mm hoops
4 Æ 20 mm
6 Æ 25 mm 6 Æ 25 mm 8 Æ 25 mm 6 Æ 25 mm 6 Æ 25 mm 60
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm
Æ 10 mm Æ 10 mm 4 Æ 20 mm
40
40
40

Hoops and
40

40

Hoops and Hoops and 30

Hoops Hoops
crossties crossties crossties Æ 10 mm hoops
40 40 40 40 40

Dimensions in cm
600 600 600 600

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 23. Details of the moment-resisting frame designed according to EHE/NCSE-02 codes

180 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.
 Moment-resisting framed building (ACI-318/IBC-2003)

10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 4 Æ 5/8⬙

Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙

60
hoops

40

40

40

40

40
Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and
crossties crossties crossties crossties crossties 4 Æ 5/8⬙
40 40 40 40 40 30

10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 10 Æ 5/8⬙ 4 Æ 5/8⬙

Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙

60
Hoops and 40 hoops

40

40

40

40
Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and
crossties crossties crossties crossties 4 Æ 5/8⬙
40 40 40 40 40 30
4 Æ 5/8⬙
Æ 3/8⬙

60
14 Æ 5/8⬙ 12 Æ 3/4⬙ 12 Æ 3/4⬙ 12 Æ 3/4⬙ 14 Æ 5/8⬙ hoops
Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ Æ 3/8⬙ 4 Æ 5/8⬙

45
45

45

45

45
Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and Hoops and 30
crossties crossties crossties crossties crossties
45 45 45 45 45

Dimensions in cm
600 600 600 600

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 24. Details of the moment-resisting frame designed according to ACI-318/IBC-2003

Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2006,

Hoops 3/8⬙ @ 10 Hoops 3/8⬙ @ 20 21, No. 8, 573–593.
4. BARBAT A. H., PUJADES L. G. and LANTADA N. Seismic
damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity
Hoops 3/8⬙

spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dynamics

112·5

@ 10

120 and Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 28, Nos 10–11, 851–

865.
5. SEAOC. Vision 2000 Report on Performance Based Seismic
Hoops 3/8⬙ @ 20

Engineering of Buildings. Structural Engineers Association

450

of California, Sacramento, California, 1995, Vol. I

6. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). ATC-40: The Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. ATC,
Redwood City, CA, 1996.
7. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. NEHRP
Hoops 3/8⬙

Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.

@ 10
112·5

FEMA 273—Provisions. FEMA 274—Commentary,

Washington, DC, 1997.
8. BERTERO R. and BERTERO V. Performance-based seismic
Dimensions in cm
engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual
600
comprehensive approach. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31, No. 3, 627–652.
9. ELNASHAI A. and MWAFI A. Overstreght and force reduction
Figure 25. Details of the confined zones in columns and beams factors of multistory reinforced-concrete buildings.
of the frame designed according to ACI-318/IBC-2003
Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 2002, 11, No. 5, 329–
351.
10. FRAGIACOMO M., AMADIO C. and RAJGELJ S. Evaluation of
the structural response under seismic actions using non-
linear static methods. Earthquake Engineering and
REFERENCES Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35, No. 12, 1511–1531.
1. EGOZCUE J. J., BARBAT A. H., CANAS J. A., MIQUEL J. and 11. ERBERIK A. and ELNASHAI A. Loss estimation analysis of
BANDA E. A method to estimate occurrence probabilities in flat-slab structures. Journal of Structural Engineering,
low seismic activity regions. Earthquake Engineering and 2006, 7, No. 1, 26–37.
Structural Dynamics, 1991, 20, No. 1, 43–60. 12. HUESTE M B. and BAI J.-W. Seismic retrofit of a reinforced
2. BARBAT A. H., YÉPEZ MOYA F. and CANAS J. A. Damage concrete flat-slab structure: Part I —seismic performance
scenarios simulation for risk assessment in urban zones. evaluation. Engineering Structures, 2007, 29, No. 6, 1165–
Earthquake Spectra, 1996, 2, No. 3, 371–394. 1177.
3. BARBAT A. H., PUJADES L. G. and LANTADA N. Performance 13. Uniform Building Code (UBC-97). International Building
of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain. Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, 1997.

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al. 181
 14. International Building Code (IBC-2003). International damage model for concrete. International Journal of Solids
Building Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, and Structures, 1989, 25, No. 3, 299–326.
California, 2003. 29. BARBAT A. H., OLLER S., ONATE E. and HANGANU A. Viscous
15. COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION. Eurocode 8: Design of damage model for Timoshenko beam structures.
Structures for Earthquake Resistance. CEN, Brussels, 2003. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1997, 34,
16. NORMA DE CONSTRUCCIÓN SISMORRESISTENTE. BOE No. 244. No. 30, 3953–3976.
NSCE-2002. Madrid. 2002. Available online from: http:// 30. FALEIRO FREITAS J., OLLER S. and BARBAT A. H. Plastic-
www.proteccioncivil.org/centrodoc/legisla/NCSR-02.pdf. damage seismic model for reinforced concrete frames.
17. BARBAT A. H., OLLER S. and VIELMA J. C. Confinement and Computers and Structures, 2008, 86, Nos 7–8, 581–597.
Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. ARCER, 31. OLLER S., CAR E. and LUBLINER J. Definition of a general
monograph No. 5, Madrid, 2007. In Spanish. implicit orthotropic yield criterion. Computer Methods in
18. VIELMA J. C., BARBAT A. H. and OLLER S. Evaluación de la Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2003, 192, Nos 7–8,
respuesta no lineal de edificios de hormigón armado con 895–912.
ductilidad limitada. Hormigón y Acero, 2008, 248, 55–60. 32. MARTINEZ X., OLLER S., RASTELLINI F. and BARBAT A. H.
19. PARK R. State-of-the-art report: ductility evaluation from A numerical procedure simulating RC structures reinforced
laboratory and analytical testing. Proceedings 9th WCEE, with FRP using the serial/parallel mixing theory. Computers
IAEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1988, VIII, 605–616. and Structures, 2008, 86, Nos 15–16, 1604–1618.
20. COMISIÓN PERMANENTE DEL HORMIGÓN. Instrucción de hormigón 33. BAYRAK O. and SHEIKH S. A. Plastic hinge analysis. Journal
estructura (EHE). Leynfor siglo XXI, Madrid, 1998. of Structural Engineering, 2001, 127, No. 9, 1092–100.
21. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. Building Code Requirements 34. SPACONE E. and EL-TAWIL S. Nonlinear analysis of
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05). ACI, Farmington steel–concrete composite structures: State of the art.
Hills, Michigan, 2005, ACI Committee 318. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2000, 126, No. 2,
22. PLCd Manual. Non-linear thermo mechanic finite element 159–168.
oriented to PhD student education. Code developed at 35. SHAO Y., AVAL S. and MIRMIRAN A. Fiber–element model
CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, 2008. for cyclic analysis of concrete-filled fiber reinforced
23. OLLER S. and BARBAT A. H. Moment–curvature damage polymer tubes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005,
model for bridges subjected to seismic loads. Computer 131, No. 2, 292–303.
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2006, 195, 36. MANDER J. B., PRIESTLEY M. J. N. and PARK R. Observed
4490–4511. stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete. Journal
24. CAR E., OLLER S. and OÑATE E. A large strain plasticity for of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114, No. 8, 1827–1849.
anisotropic materials: composite material application. 37. HANGANU A., OÑATE E. and BARBAT A. H. A finite element
International Journal of Plasticity, 2001, 17, No. 11, 1437– methodology for local/global damage evaluation in civil
1463. engineering structures. Computers and Structures, 2002,
25. MATA P., OLLER S. and BARBAT A. H. Static analysis of beam 80, Nos 20–21, 1667–1687.
structures under nonlinear geometric and constitutive 38. BARBAT A. H., OLLER S., OÑATE E. and HANGANU A. Viscous
behaviour. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and damage model for Timoshenko beam structures.
Engineering, 2007, 196, Nos 45–48, 4458–4478. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1997, 34,
26. MATA P., OLLER S. and BARBAT A. H. Dynamic analysis of No. 30, 3953–3976.
beam structures under nonlinear geometric and 39. CAR E., OLLER S. and OÑATE E. An anisotropic elastoplastic
constitutive behaviour. Computer Methods in Applied constitutive model for large strain analysis of fiber
Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 197, Nos 6–8, 857–878. reinforced composite materials. Computer Methods in
27. OLLER S., ONATE E., OLIVER J. and LUBLINER J. Finite element Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2000, 185, Nos 2-4,
non-linear analysis of concrete structures using a plastic- 245–277.
damage model. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1990, 35, 40. FAJFAR P. A Nonlinear analysis method for performance
Nos 1–3, 219–231. based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 2000, 16, No. 3,
28. LUBLINER J., OLIVER J., OLLER S. and OÑATE E. A plastic- 573–591.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

182 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB3 Seismic performance of waffled-slab floor buildings Vielma et al.