Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

35
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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):

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

36
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

37
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

38
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

39
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

40
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

41
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
42
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

43
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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:
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
44
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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 [Link] 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.

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

45
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

46
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

[Link]. 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% (§[Link] 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.

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

47
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

Figure 3.14 Modal analysis, deformed shapes in black color and undeformed shapes in
gray color

[Link]. 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.

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

48
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

[Link].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)

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

49
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

[Link].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)

[Link].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).

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

50
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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%
(§[Link] 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-

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

51
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

story (§[Link] 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)

[Link]. Pushover analysis

Two different horizontal actions have been studied as suggested in the chapter §[Link].2.2 of
Eurocode 8:
i) horizontal load proportional to the mass distribution (denoted as ‘‘Mass’’),
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
52
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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 (§[Link].2.3.) the maximum lateral displacement could be between
zero and the value corresponding to 150% of the target displacement (defined in §[Link].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)

Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
53
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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).

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

54
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

3.5.1. Forces and moments diagrams

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.

[Link]. Axial force

Frame 1 = -387kN Frame 1 = -387kN

Frame 2 = -467kN Frame 2 = -467kN

Frame 3 = -467kN Frame 3 = -467kN

Frame 4 = -387kN Frame 4 = -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

[Link]. Bending moment

71922 71922
Frame 1 Frame 1
kNmm kNmm
134739 134739
Frame 2 Frame 2
kNmm kNmm
134739 134739
Frame 3 Frame 3
kNmm kNmm

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

55
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

71922 71922
Frame 4 Frame 4
kNmm kNmm
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction
Figure 3.22 Seismic load combination, bending moment diagrams

[Link]. Shear force

Frame 1 = 79kN Frame 1 = 79kN

Frame 2 = 149kN Frame 2 = 149kN

Frame 3 = 149kN Frame 3 = 149kN

Frame 4 = 79kN Frame 4 = 79kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction
Figure 3.24 Seismic load combination, shear force diagrams

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

56
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

[Link]. Torsional moment

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

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction
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.

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

57
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
58
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

59
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

60
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

61
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
62
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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:

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

63
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

,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

From equation (3.13) we have:

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 

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

64
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

65
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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):

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

66
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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:

N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.29)

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  .

The web buckles first when:

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).

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

67
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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:

N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.36)

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  .

The web buckles first when:

N x,cr SSf  11  f  N x,cr SSw  11 w (3.40)

The buckling load is then calculated by expression (3.27).

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

68
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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 [Link]).

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).

3.6.1. Forces and moments diagrams

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.

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

69
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

[Link]. Axial force

Frame 1 = -269kN Frame 1 = -289kN

Frame 2 = -325kN Frame 2 = -329kN

Frame 3 = -325kN Frame 3 = -321kN

Frame 4 = -269kN Frame 4 = -250kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.33 Rare load combination, axial force diagrams

Frame 1 = -244kN Frame 1 = -261kN

Frame 2 = -293kN Frame 2 = -296kN

Frame 3 = -293kN Frame 3 = -290kN

Frame 4 = -244kN Frame 4 = -227kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.34 Frequent load combination, axial force diagrams

Frame 1 = -236kN Frame 1 = -253kN

Frame 2 = -283kN Frame 2 = -286kN

Frame 3 = -273kN Frame 3 = -279kN

Frame 4 = -236kN Frame 4 = -219kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.35 Quasi-permanent load combination, axial force diagrams

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

70
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

[Link]. Bending moment

Frame 1 = Frame 1 =
49477kNmm 49479kNmm
Frame 2 = Frame 2 =
92610kNmm 92611kNmm
Frame 3 = Frame 3 =
92611kNmm 92610kNmm
Frame 4 = Frame 4 =
49479kNmm 49477kNmm
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.38 Quasi-permanent load combination, bending moment diagrams

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

71
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

[Link]. Shear force

Frame 1 = 54kN Frame 1 = 54kN

Frame 2 = 103kN Frame 2 = 103kN

Frame 3 = 103kN Frame 3 = 103kN

Frame 4 = 54kN Frame 4 = 54kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.39 Rare load combination, shear force diagrams

Frame 1 = 48kN Frame 1 = 48kN

Frame 2 = 91kN Frame 2 = 91kN

Frame 3 = 91kN Frame 3 = 91kN

Frame 4 = 48kN Frame 4 = 48kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.40 Frequent load combination, shear force diagrams

Frame 1 = 46kN Frame 1 = 46kN

Frame 2 = 87kN Frame 2 = 87kN

Frame 3 = 87kN Frame 3 = 87kN

Frame 4 = 46kN Frame 4 = 46kN

Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.41 Quasi-permanent load combination, shear force diagrams

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

72
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

[Link]. Torsional moment

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
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
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
Wind in x-direction Wind in y-direction
Figure 3.44 Quasi-permanent load combination, torsional moment diagrams

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

73
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

3.6.2. Verification of elements

[Link]. 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

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

74
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

From equation (3.41) we have:

f Rd  1 0.3 
220
 66 MPa
1

Since f Rd is higher than f Sd the verification is satisfied.

[Link]. 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
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
75
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

76
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

77
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

78
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

79
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

80
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

so the verification is satisfied.

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

so the verification is satisfied.

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

81
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

(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
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
82
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

so the verification is satisfied.

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/[Link].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. [Link]
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.
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
83
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.
Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, 3rd Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
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.
[Link]
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.
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.
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. [Link]
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.
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).
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.

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

84
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

85
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

86
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.

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

87
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
88
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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 §[Link] 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:
Manual by Top Glass S.p.A. and IUAV University of Venice
89
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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 [Link]) 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.

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

90
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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;

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

91
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

- 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.

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

92
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.
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: [Link], 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
JRC99714, EUR 27666 EN, European Union, Luxembourg, (2016), p 171. ISBN 978-92-79-
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, 3rd Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
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.
[Link]
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.
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.
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).

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

93
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

94
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

G12 = shear modulus in direction 1-2

G13 = shear modulus in direction 1-3

G23 = shear modulus in direction 2-3

 12 = Poisson ratio in direction 1-2

 13 = Poisson ratio in direction 1-3

 23 = Poisson ratio in direction 2-3

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)

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

95
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

96
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

97
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

D22, f = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D22,w = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D12, f = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D12,w = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D66, f = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

D66,w = element of the bending stiffness matrix of a plate

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

98
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

99
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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

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

100
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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)

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

101
 Design of FRP structures in seismic zone

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.
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: [Link], 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
JRC99714, EUR 27666 EN, European Union, Luxembourg, (2016), p 171. ISBN 978-92-79-
54225-1 doi:10.2788/22306
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.
[Link]
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.

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

102