{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03286118980169972, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013031161473087818, 'mean_word_length': 5.21830985915493, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Seismic Performance Assessment of a Moment-Frame Reinforced Concrete Building Typology

This study covers the application of Static and Dynamic nonlinear analysis to an old moment-frame reinforced concrete building. The case study selected is a template one designed in 1982 without shear walls and built throughout Albanian region in the communism era using old standards (KTP 2-78). For the capacity calculation, Pushover analysis is performed using an inverse triangular load pattern. The demand calculation is conducted using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) as a method which provides the response behavior of the structure from the elastic range until collapse. For the dynamic analysis is used a set of 18 earthquakes with no marks of directivity. Limit states are defined for both Pushover and IDA based on the FEMA 356 guidelines. The mathematical model is prepared in the environment of Zeus-NL, a software developed especially for earthquake applications. The parameters defined for the IDA analysis are 5% damped first mode spectral acceleration (Sa(T1,5%)) for the intensity measure (IM) and maximum global drift ratio (ϴmax) for the damage measure (DM). In addition, limit states are selected for the pushover curve as Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP). Similarly, for the IDA curve the limit states are selected as IO, CP and Global Instability (GI) based on FEMA guidelines. Furthermore, IDA curves are summarized into 16%, 50% and 84% fractiles as suggested in the literature. Additionally, a comparison between Pushover and IDA median (50% fractile) is shown from the same graph to illustrate the correlations between performance levels. Finally, structural performance is interpreted based on the outcomes.