Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Figure 9b. Near collapse level — brittle reinf. is excluded from model.3.3 Parametric StudyUsing models and procedures calibrated within the CAMUS study and simplifiednon-linear assessment method N2, an extensive deterministic parametric study ofidealized buildings with structural walls (Fig. 10) designed according to EC8 wasdone. The influence of the flanges and wall openings has not been considered.The area of the wall was kept constant (A wall = 1.0 m 2 ). The varied parametersincluded maximum ground acceleration (a g,max = 0.1g, 0.2g, 0.3g ), seismic forcereduction factor (behavior factor q = 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5 in 6), number of stories (n = 5, 10,15) and wall-to-floor ratio (ρ 1 = 1%, 1.5%, 2% in 3%). Axial force was calculatedbased on one half of the tributary area (considering walls in the perpendiculardirection).Figure 10. Idealized floor plan. Figure 11. Maximum def. on thecompression edges of the walls (10-storybuildings).The results will be presented at the 13 th WCEE (Fischinger et al., 2004). Only oneresult is demonstrated here for illustration. The deformation of the compression edgewas chosen as one of the EDPs indicating local damage related to requiredconfinement. In Fig. 11 the deformation of the compression edge for 10-storybuildings (the highest of the buildings typically built in Slovenia) is plotted as thefunction of the behavior factor (q) and wall-to-floor ratio (ρ 1 ) on one axis and a g,max onthe other axes.300