Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic performance of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames


R. Sadjadi a , M.R. Kianoush a, , S. Talebi b
a Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
b TAG Structural Group Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Received 14 June 2006; received in revised form 13 October 2006; accepted 27 November 2006
Available online 18 January 2007

Abstract
Moment resisting frames (MRF) are typically classified as ductile, nominally ductile, and GLD (Gravity Load Designed). The seismic
performance of these structures can be evaluated in terms of its lateral load resistance, distribution of interstory drift, and the sequence of yielding
of the members. In this study a typical 5-story frame is designed as (a) ductile, (b) nominally ductile, (c) GLD, and (d) retrofitted GLD. This
study presents an analytical approach for seismic assessment of RC frames using nonlinear time history analysis and push-over analysis. The
analytical models are validated against available experimental results and used in a study to evaluate the seismic behavior of these 5-story frames.
It is concluded that both the ductile and the nominally ductile frames behaved very well under the considered earthquake, while the seismic
performance of the GLD structure was not satisfactory. After the damaged GLD frame was retrofitted the seismic performance was improved.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Moment resisting frame; Ductile; Nominally ductile; GLD; Retrofitted GLD

1. Introduction
Many multi-story RC frame structures built prior to 1970
and located in seismic zones have been designed only for
gravity loads without any consideration of lateral loads. These
structures are referred to as gravity load designed (GLD)
frames. The lack of seismic considerations in GLD structures
results in non-ductile behavior in which the lateral load
resistance of these buildings may be insufficient for even
moderate earthquakes. Current seismic codes for reinforced
concrete structures are based on considerations of inelastic
behavior in the structural members, which requires the
formation of a desirable beam side-sway mechanism rather
than the column side-sway mechanism. According to the
Canadian design practice, designers have two options for the
seismic design of reinforced concrete frames [1]. The first
option is to design a ductile frame, which involves special
design and detailing provisions to ensure ductile behavior.
The second option is to design a nominally ductile frame.
This option involves designing for twice the seismic lateral
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x6455; fax: +1 416 979 5122.

E-mail addresses: rsadjadi@ryerson.ca (R. Sadjadi),


kianoush@ryerson.ca (M.R. Kianoush), talebi@taginc.ca (S. Talebi).
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.029

load as that of ductile frames, but without taking all the


special provisions for capacity-based design and good detailing
in the design of the frame members. By allowing such
a choice, the code implies that either type of frame will
provide equivalent seismic performance under the design level
earthquake disturbance. The seismic design lateral loads and
the level of seismic reinforcement detailing incorporated in an
RC moment resisting frame depend on its available ductility
capacity. In ductile structures, the design lateral loads reduce
significantly, but high ductility capacity is enhanced through
strict detailing requirements to avoid premature modes of brittle
failure.
The seismic resistance of existing GLD structures may be
inadequate due to weaknesses in the structural system and
non-ductile detailing. To mitigate the seismic hazards, existing
deficient structures should be retrofitted.
The evaluation of the seismic resistance of existing
structures and their deficiencies is essential before an
appropriate repair or upgrade system can be designed. Because
of the economic feasibility of using analytical models instead
of obtaining data from destructive experimental tests, there is a
need for an efficient and reliable analytical tool, which predicts
the real behavior of such structures during an earthquake, and
gives comparable results to experimental data.

2366

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Heidebrecht and Naumoski [2] conducted an extensive


analytical investigation on the performance of a six-story
ductile moment resisting frame designed based on the National
Building Code of Canada [3], using several different design
variations. Filiatrault et al. [4,5] conducted experimental test
and analytical modeling of a two-story reduced scale frames
designed as ductile and nominally ductile based on the
provisions of NBCC 1995 [3] and of the Canadian Concrete
Standard [1]. There have also been numerous studies on the
seismic performance of the GLD structures such as Bracci et al.
[6], Kunnath et al. [7], and Aycardi et al. [8].
Bracci et al. [9] studied different retrofit techniques for
the seismic performance of the GLD frames. These studies
include analytical modeling and experimental test of GLD subassemblages, and frames.
However, there has not been a study to date which compares
the seismic performance of RC frames designed based on
ductile, nominally ductile, GLD, and retrofitted GLD options.
This study presents an approach for the assessment of seismic
behavior of existing RC frames. Therefore, inelastic models
of such frames are developed and analyzed using IDARC2D
(Version 6.0) [10].
Available shake table tests of two half-scale reinforced
concrete moment resisting frames, designed according to
Canadian standards as ductile and nominally ductile [4],
are compared with the predictions of inelastic time-history
dynamic analyses following the proposed method. The
reliability of the method is first assessed and then the unknown
parameters in terms of the hysteretic rule parameters are
determined so as to achieve more comparable results between
analytical results and the experimental evidence. For the GLD
and retrofitted GLD frames, the information from the research
by Bracci et al. [9] is used. After calibration of the unknown
parameters for each type of frame, analytical investigation
is conducted to evaluate the performance of the four typical
5-story frame buildings designed as ductile, nominally ductile,
GLD, and retrofitted GLD. The study includes non-linear
time-history analysis and pushover analysis. The results in
terms of ductility, time-history response of the top story, base
shear-top story displacement, sequence of yielding, distribution
of interstory drift, and the damage potential are presented.
2. Description of the 5-story building
The plan view and elevation of the 5-story building is shown
in Fig. 1. Each frame is assumed to be part of the lateral load
resisting system of a building. The story height is 4 m for the
first story and 3 m for other stories resulting in a total building
height of 16 m.
In terms of the lateral stiffness and mass distribution, the
structure is almost symmetrical in plan with respect to two
orthogonal axes; therefore analysis may be performed using
two planar models, one for each main horizontal direction.
The structure is also vertically regular as there is neither
discontinuity nor abrupt change in the dimensions and stiffness
of the adjacent stories. It is important to note that if the center

Fig. 1. The 5 story building. (a) Plan, (b) Elevation.

of mass and center of rigidity do not match, torsional response


results, so 3D models are needed.
The material properties are assumed to be identical for the
four structures throughout the height of the structure as: (a)
reinforcing steel yield strength, Fy = 400 MPa; (b) concrete
compressive strength, f c0 = 35 MPa.
In this study the seismic behavior of four types of MRF
with the aforementioned specifications are discussed. The first
two types correspond to moment resisting frames which are
designed based on the Canadian code seismic provisions,
namely ductile and nominally ductile. The GLD frame is
assumed to be built before seismic provisions were included in
building codes and this structure is designed based on the ACI
code provisions of ACI 318-63 [11].
2.1. Lateral loads
The NBCC 1995 seismic base shear is given by:
V = (Ve /R)U

(1)

where Ve is the equivalent lateral seismic force representing


elastic response, R is the response modification factor (given
R = 2 for nominally ductile frame and R = 4.0 for ductile
moment resisting frame structures), U = 0.6 is a calibration
factor, Ve is the elastic lateral seismic force, which is given by:
Ve = v SIFW

(2)

2367

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380


Table 1
Summary of design seismic loads (for frame B) for ductile and nominally ductile (ND) frames
Floor

h l (m) Story height

Wl (MN) Story weight

Roof
5
4
3

16
13
10
7

2.75
3.28
3.28
3.28

2.89

Fx (kN) Design base


shear
ND
Ductile
1465.0
1419.0
1091.0
763.3
0
384.7
0

Tx Torsion (kN m)
ND

Ductile

Fxt Torsional
lateral forces
ND
Ductile

Total lateral
forces
ND
Ductile

732.5
709.5
545.5
381.6

3223.0
3121.8
2400.0
1679.3

1611.5
1560.9
1200.0
839.5

48.3
46.8
36.0
25.2

24.2
23.4
18.0
12.6

414.6
401.6
308.7
216.0

207.3
200.8
154.4
108.0

192.35

846.3

423.2

12.7

6.35

108.9

54.5

= 15.48

where, v is zonal velocity ratio. It is assumed that the building


is located in the highest seismic zone (i.e. v = 0.4), S is the
1.5
seismic response factor =
for T 0.5 s (given T =
T
0.1N = 0.5 s, S = 2.121), where T is the fundamental period
of vibration, N is the total number of stories above grade, I is
the seismic importance factor assumed to be 1.0 as the building
is intended for typical office occupancy, F is the foundation
factor assumed to be equal to 1.3, as the structure is assumed to
be built on soft base soil.
According to the Canadian Concrete Standard, the use of
R = 4 for the ductile structure was justified by implementing
the strict seismic detailing requirements. The structure with
nominal ductility (R = 2) incorporated only nominal detailing,
since its design lateral loads were higher than the ductile
structure.
The dead load (W) of the building is calculated as 15 482 kN.
The calculated base shears are 5122 and 2561 kN for the
nominally ductile and the ductile frames, respectively.
NBCC 1995 requires that the lateral load to be distributed
over the building height as:

.X
(3)
h i Wi
Fx = (V Ft )h x Wx
where, Fx is lateral force applied at level x, Ft = additional
lateral force applied to the top of building (Ft = 0.0 if
T 0.7 s), Wi and Wx are portions of W at levels i and x
respectively, h i and h x are the heights above the base to levels
i and x respectively. NBCC 1995 requires that the effects of
torsional moments be included in the design of the lateral force
resisting system. Since there is no eccentricity in the building,
the accidental applied torsional moment is calculated using the
following formula at each level (x):
Tx = (Fx )(0.1Dnx ) = 2.2Fx

(4)

where Dnx = 22 m is the plan dimension of the building in the


direction of the computed eccentricity.
2.2. Analysis and design of the frames
Initial elastic analyses of the frames were performed in
order to determine the structural element seismic design forces
using SAP2000 [12]. A summary of the design seismic
lateral loads on frame-B as shown in Fig. 1 for ductile

and nominally ductile (ND) frames is shown in Table 1.


The ductile and nominally ductile structures are designed
according to provisions of NBCC 1995 and of the Canadian
Concrete Standard. Summaries of designed beam sections and
reinforcement for the ductile, nominally ductile, and GLD
structures are shown in Table 2.
For the ductile frame, the interior columns are 800800 mm
with 12No.30 bars, and exterior columns are 600600 mm with
12No.20 bars.
For the nominally ductile frame, columns are 600600 mm.
The bars are 12No.30 bars at 1st, and 2nd story, 8No.30 bars at
3rd, and 8No.25 bars at 4th, and 5th stories.
Although the design lateral load for the ductile structure was
reduced to half of that of the nominally ductile structure, the
sizes of the columns were determined based on the application
of capacity design at the joints, adopted by the Canadian
Concrete Standard, which imposes the requirement that:
X
X
Mrc 1.1
Mnb ,
(5)
P
where
Mrc is the sum of moments at the center of the joint,
corresponding to the
Pfactored resistance of the columns framing
into the joint, and
Mnb is the sum of moments at the center
of the joint, corresponding to the nominal flexural resistance of
the beams framing into the joint.
2.3. Design of the GLD frame
The GLD frame has the same configuration and geometry
as the other two cases of study. The structure was assumed to
be constructed prior to 1970 and therefore designed according
to the provisions of ACI 318-63 [11]. Since the code did not
include seismic requirements, the framing system is assumed
to be located in a Sandspit-BC with high-risk seismic zone and
is designed for a wind load pressure of 0.63 kPa on vertical
surfaces, and the same gravity loads as the other cases of study.
All columns are 350 350 mm with 6No.20 bars throughout
the height of the GLD structure.
2.4. The retrofitted GLD frame
There are several methods for retrofitting an RC frame
which can be applied to an either damaged or undamaged

2368

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Table 2
Summary of designed section for ductile frame beams
Type

Story

Location

Dimensions (mm)

As (mm2 )

Elevation

Ductile

1st

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

600 600

3000
1500
1200

Top
Bot
Bot

2nd

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

600 600

3000
1500
1200

Top
Bot
Bot

3rd

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

500 500

2700
1400
1500

Top
Bot
Bot

4th and 5th

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

500 500

2000
1000
1500

Top
Bot
Bot

1st

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

600 600

5700
4200
1400

Top
Bot
Bot

2nd

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

600 600

5700
4200
1400

Top
Bot
Bot

3rd

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

500 500

5900
3100
1400

Top
Bot
Bot

4th and 5th

Int & Ext Support ()


Int & Ext Support (+)
Mid-span

500 500

4200
2100
2100

Top
Bot
Bot

All floors

Interior Support ()
Exterior Support ()
Mid-span

250 450

2000
1500
2000

Top
Top
Bot

Nominally Ductile

GLD

structure such as improved concrete jacketing, masonry


block jacketing, and partial masonry infill (Bracci et al. [9]).
Column retrofitting is often critical to the seismic
performance of a structure. To prevent the column-sway
mechanism during earthquakes, columns should never be the
weakest components in the building structure. The response of
a column in a building structure is controlled by its combined
axial load, flexure, and shear. Therefore, improved concrete
jacketing is used to increase column shear and flexural strength
so that columns do not conform to the weak-column strong
beam undesirable mechanism.
In this study it is decided to evaluate the application of
the improved concrete jacketing to all columns of the GLD
frame. In this method all the 350 350 mm columns are
encased in a concrete jacket with additional longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement and the column size is increased to
500 500 mm. This will increase the moment of resistance
of the columns relative to the beams. The reinforcement is
not anchored to the foundation to avoid the transmission of
additional stresses to the foundation and, more importantly,
to force the desirable mechanism of column base hinging in
case of the seismic force. The longitudinal bars are then posttensioned, and an RC fillet is provided in the beam column joint
zone. This will enhance the shear capacity of the beam-column
joint by increasing the axial load and also will increase the bond
condition between the beam reinforcement and the concrete at
the joint zone (Bracci et al. [9]).

3. Nonlinear modeling
A number of computer programs are available for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Some of these
programs such as LARSA, SAP2000, ABAQUS, NISA, and
ANSYS implement finite element methods (FEM) for the
analysis of the structures. The application of FEM for seismic
analysis of a multistory reinforced concrete structure is a
very time-consuming and complicated task. On the other hand
application of simple and reliable modeling schemes such as
macro-modeling that permits efficient seismic analysis of the
entire multistory frame is more justified. Therefore programs
such as IDARC2D, DRAIN-2DX, and RUAUMOKO have been
used widely for the seismic analysis of structures. The main
advantage of such programs is their simplicity, and the speed of
analysis, which is important in the case of analysis of structures
with several members.
The inelastic dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete
building structures program IDARC2D (Version 6.0) [10] is
used to observe the response of the structure to nonlinear
time history and pushover analyses. It has the capability of
using both lumped plasticity, and spread plasticity concepts.
The formulations are based on macro-models in which most
of the elements are represented as a comprehensive element
with nonlinear behavior. Columns and beams are macromodeled with inelastic flexural deformation and elastic shear
deformation. The load-deformation of the structure is simulated

2369

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

by versatile hysteretic models, which are implemented in the


program and are mainly controlled by parameters indicating the
stiffness degradation, strength deterioration, and pinching of the
hysteretic loops.
The damage index developed by Park et al. [13] has
been incorporated in the program and is used to estimate
the accumulated damage sustained by the components of the
structure, by each story level, and the entire building. A global
value of the damage index can be used to characterize damage
in the entire RC frame.
In the first part of this study, the objective would be the
calibration of the hysteretic behavior of the test specimens.
The calibration of the hysteretic rule parameters governing the
behavior of the ductile and nominally ductile frames has been
achieved by reproducing the experimental results of the test
done elsewhere [4].

Table 3
Typical range of values for hysteretic parameters
Parameter

Meaning

Value

Effect

HC

Stiffness degrading
parameter

4.0
10.0
15.0
200.0

Severe degrading
Moderate degrading
Mild degrading
No degrading

HBD

Strength degrading
parameter (ductility
based)

0.60
0.30
0.15
0.01

Severe degrading
Moderate degrading
Mild degrading
No degrading

HBE

Strength degrading
parameter (ductility
based)

0.60
0.30
0.08
0.01

Severe deteriorating
Moderate deteriorating
Mild deteriorating
No deteriorating

HS

Slip or Crack-closing
parameter

0.05
0.25
0.40
1.00

Severe pinched loops


Moderate pinching
Mild pinching
No pinching

3.1. Envelope generation option


There are two options for defining the material properties for
each element.
Either IDARC2D will generate the envelopes for the
elements, or the program requires complete moment curvature
envelope data to be provided by user. The first option sometimes
results in errors and is not recommended. However, the
second option requires the moment-curvature envelope for each
element which is a tedious task. Some researchers such as Lee
and Woo [14] have used other programs for generation of the
moment curvature envelope. It is also important to note that by
using the first option there is no possibility for considering the
reduced stiffness of the members, which is very important for
obtaining accurate results in the case of seismic loading.
The method which is proposed in this study uses the first
option only to get some information about the cracking and
yielding of the element. The results are then included in another
input file using the second option incorporating the reduced
flexural stiffness for each member.
3.2. Hysteretic modeling rules
The hysteretic values should characterize stiffness degradation, strength deterioration, and pinching behavior for the
columns and beams for each type of moment resisting frame.
For simulation of the experimental test in the first part of this
report, the values were obtained by a trial and error process.
Therefore, after determination of the element properties for
beams and columns, several analyses are carried out with different values of hysteretic parameters and those which yielded
the most comparable results to the experiments are selected to
be implemented in the analyses of the 5-story frame. For the
ductile and nominally ductile frames it is evident that those values should refer to a section with very small values of stiffness degradation, strength deterioration and bond slip, the reason is that the columns connections to the beams have large
volumes of well-anchoraged longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, which help the mechanism of the shear resistance
of the connection to be fully mobilized, and also postpone degrading phenomena like debonding of the reinforcement and

Table 4
Hysteretic parameter values for each type of frame
Type of structure

Element

HC

HBD

HBE

HS

Ductile

Column
Beam

50
15

0.10
0.15

0.04
0.08

1
1

Nominally ductile

Column
Beam

15
15

0.15
0.15

0.08
0.08

1
1

GLD and retrofitted GLD

Column
Beam

10
4

0.10
0.40

0.15
0.15

1
1

concrete. It is important to mention that there was no need


for the determination of the hysteretic values for the GLD and
retrofitted GLD structures, as the study by Bracci et al. [6,9],
and also IDARC2D Users Guide (Case study #4) [10] already
have complete information along with the hysteretic parameters for these types of moment resisting frames. For modeling
the nonlinear behavior of the structural elements, the tri-linear
model was adopted. The model incorporates Stiffness degradation parameter (HC), Strength deterioration parameter (HBD,
HBC), and slip-lock parameter (HS) as described earlier. Typical ranges of values for hysteretic parameters and their effect
on the hysteretic behavior of the structure are shown in Table 3.
The values of the hysteretic parameters determined for the four
different types of 5-story building in this study are as shown in
Table 4.
3.3. Analysis type
Dynamic analysis can be carried out by specifying a wave
file in terms of the ground motion data for a specific design
earthquake. The program then uses a combination of the
Newmark-Beta method, and the pseudo-force method. The
solution is performed incrementally assuming the properties of
the structure, such as the flexural stiffness, do not change during
the time step.

2370

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

4. Description and response of the two-story frame


Filiatrult et al. [4] carried out an experimental study of a
two-story frame designed as ductile and nominally ductile
frames. The two test structures were designed, at their reduced
scale, according to the provisions of the National Building
Code of Canada (NBCC 1995) and of the Canadian Concrete
Standard (CSA, 1994). Each structure was assumed to be part
of the lateral load resisting system of a building, with two
stories (each 1.5 m high) and two bays (each 2.5 m wide). The
ductile structure incorporated full seismic details, composed
of rectangular hoops, with 135 hooks, spaced at 30 mm on
centre in critical locations of the beams, columns, and joints.
The spacing of the hoops in the structure with nominal ductility
was larger (65 mm on centre in the columns and 60 mm in the
beams) except in the beams near the column faces where the
spacing was reduced to 30 mm.
The two test frames were subjected to simulated seismic
loads using a shaking table. The N04W component of the
accelerogram recorded in Olympia, Washington, during the
April 13, 1949, Western Washington earthquake was chosen as
the base motion input for the seismic tests. The peak horizontal
acceleration (PHA) is 0.16g and the peak horizontal velocity
(PHV) is 0.21 m/s. The strong motion duration is around 30 s
with a total duration of 89 s. The accelerogram was scaled to a
PHA value of 0.21g for the first test (Intensity 1) and to 0.42g
for the second test (Intensity 2).
The results of the experimental study were further
investigated and analyzed by Filiatrault et al. [5], which is also
analyzed and compared with IDARC2D presented in this study.
4.1. Input parameters for analysis
As the selected strong motion had a total duration of 89 s,
the database used in this study (COSMOS) [15] contained 4454
corrected data with equally-spaced time intervals of 0.02 s.
Because only the first 30 s strong motion input was selected for
the experimental test, only the first 1500 points was extracted
from the data and then scaled to a PHA value of 0.21g to
simulate the Intensity 1 test. For the Intensity 2 test with ground
motion scaled to a PHA value of 0.42g, first a zero acceleration
period of 10 s (500 points of 0 value) was added to the end
of the first 1500 points for Intensity 1 data, then 1500 points
corresponding to double of the value of each point in the first
1500 points for Intensity 1, were added to the end of the 10 s of
zero acceleration period.
All input parameters for the second part of the analysis
were extracted from the output file of the first analysis (using
program generated envelopes for the elements) except the initial
stiffness of the member. Due to microcracking of the RC
member, the initial stiffness properties in the RC members are
smaller than the properties of the uncracked sections. Under
seismic load reversals, flexural cracking of the RC elements
tends to decrease the stiffness of the member. The reduction
in the flexural stiffness should be reflected in the analysis so as
to obtain accurate results.
Filiatrault et al. [5] compared the shake table test results
with the predictions of the computer program RUAUMOKO

(Carr [16]). For the RUAUMOKO analysis, different ratios of


the equivalent moment of inertia (Ieq ) to the gross moment of
inertia (Ig ) were used for each element. In the ductile frame the
values for the columns and beams ranged from 0.40 to 0.49,
and 0.32 to 0.37, respectively. For the nominally ductile frame
the values for the columns and beams ranged from 0.38 to 0.41,
and 0.39 to 0.45, respectively.
For the beams, the equivalent inertia values are close to the
inertia value of 0.4Ig proposed by the seismic provisions of the
Canadian concrete standard (CSA 1994). The inertia values for
the columns are less than the value of 0.7Ig proposed by CSA
1994. This was attributed to the low gravity axial loads in the
columns of the test frames, which reduce the yield moment and,
thereby, reduce the equivalent moment of inertia of the columns
(Filiatrault et al. [5]).
In the IDARC2D analysis, it was decided to use a uniform
value for the stiffness reduction percentage throughout the
structure that would result in the closest analytical response
to the experiment. The stiffnesses were reduced to 50% of the
uncracked properties for columns and 35% for beams for the
ductile frame. For the nominally ductile frame, the stiffnesses
were reduced to 40% of the uncracked properties for columns
and beams.
4.2. Analytical predictions using IDARC2D
4.2.1. Ductile frame (Intensity 1)
Similar to the experimental test, the IDARC2D simulation
showed that the ductile structure behaved according to the
capacity design philosophy indicated in the Canadian code. The
final state of the frame is shown in Fig. 2(a). Throughout this
study, the symbol indicates flexural cracking, the o indicates
the flexural yielding, and * indicates local failure.
4.2.2. Ductile frame (Intensity 2)
For the Intensity 2 test, only some cracks were observed at
the top of the second story interior column. While the ends
of the beams in the first floor experienced severe yielding, no
cracking was observed above or below the beam column joints.
The final state of the frame after the Intensity 2 test is shown in
Fig. 2(b).
The overall structural damage value determined by
IDARC2D for Intensity 1 is 0.209 which refers to a minor
degree of damage and a repairable state of the building. For
Intensity 2, the overall structural damage is 0.324, referring to
a moderate condition of damage, and a repairable state of the
building.
4.2.3. Nominally ductile frame (Intensity 1)
Similar to the experimental test, the IDARC2D simulation
showed that the nominally ductile structure was able to
withstand the Intensity 1 loading without major damage.
The IDARC2D simulation showed that the top of the first
story interior column has experienced some yielding at the end
of the test. The final state of the frame is shown in Fig. 2(c). The
overall structural damage determined by IDARC2D is 0.118
which refers to a minor degree of damage and a repairable state

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

2371

Fig. 2. Final state of the frames. (a) Ductile after Intensity 1, (b) Ductile after Intensity 2, (c) Nominally ductile after Intensity 1.

of the building. During the analysis for Intensity 2, IDARC2D


indicates instability in the analysis of the structure. This is
somehow comparable to the experimental observation of a full
plastic column-sway mechanism in the first story.
Top story relative displacement time history predictions by
IDARC2D, for the ductile frame during both intensities and
the nominally ductile structure during the Intensity 1 test along
with the experimental results and the RUAUMOKO simulation
are shown in Fig. 3.
The comparison of the damage indices for Intensity 1 for
both structures indicates that the columns in the nominally
ductile structure suffered more damage than the ductile
columns, while the beams in the nominally ductile frame
suffered less damage than those of the ductile frame.
It is important to note that the difference between the
IDARC2D simulation and the experimental result could be
attributed to the fact that the selection of the analytical
parameters is difficult as the response of a structure is not
predictable. For instance the reduced stiffness ratios for all
beams and all columns in the frame was assumed to be identical
(i.e. 50% for the columns and 35% for the beams throughout
the ductile frame) as opposed to the different reduced
stiffness ratios for members considered in the simulation using
RUAUMOKO (Filiatrault et al. [5]).
4.2.4. Static push-over analysis
Nonlinear procedures consist of nonlinear static and
nonlinear dynamic analysis. A nonlinear static analysis, also
known as a push-over analysis, consists of laterally pushing
the structure in one direction with a certain lateral force or
displacement distribution until either a specified drift is attained
or a numerical instability has occurred.
The nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis provides a
more accurate estimate of the dynamic response of the

structure. However, because the results computed by the


nonlinear dynamic procedure can be sensitive to characteristics
of individual ground motions, the analysis should be carried out
with several ground motion records and the average response
be taken into account. The distributions of interstory drift
within the building floors are different. The pushover interstory
drift distributions are essentially first mode while the dynamic
interstory drift distributions contain significant second mode
contributions.
Push-over analysis is an efficient way to analyze the
behavior of the structure, highlighting the sequence of member
cracking and yielding as the base shear value increases.
This information then can be used for the evaluation of the
performance of the structure and the locations with inelastic
deformation. A static push-over analysis was performed with
IDARC2D on each structure to determine the base shear-lateral
displacement envelope and the sequence of plastic hinging. In
such analysis, a monotonic steadily increasing lateral load is
applied to the structure, in the presence of the full gravity dead
load, until a predetermined level of base shear is approached.
The sequence of plastic hinging in the ductile structure
conforms to the capacity design concept. Similar to the static
push-over analysis which was performed using RUAUMOKO
(Filiatrault et al. [5]), the first yielding occurs in the 1st story
beams followed by plastic hinging of the base of the interior
and, afterwards, the exterior columns. It is important to note
that there was no cracking or yielding at the top of columns,
indicating the successful application of the strong column-weak
beam philosophy in the design of ductile structures.
The plastic hinging pattern in the nominally ductile structure
simulation showed that the base of the interior column first
yielded, followed by the yielding of first story beams and the
base of the exterior columns. At the end of the analysis flexural
cracks were observed at the top of the first story columns. The

2372

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Fig. 3. Top story relative displacement time histories.

of the components of a building, possible mode of failure, and


final state of the building after a predetermined level of lateral
load is sustained by the structure. The limitation of accuracy of
push-over analysis will be discussed later in this paper.
5. Analytical predictions of the 5-story frame using
IDARC2D

Fig. 4. Final state of the frame after pushover analysis and the sequence of
yielding. (a) Ductile, (b) Nominally ductile.

final states of the ductile and nominally ductile frames after the
IDARC2D pushover analysis are presented in Fig. 4(a) and (b),
respectively, along with the sequence of yielding of members
shown in brackets.
By comparing the results of the push-over and the
experimental test it is concluded that pushover analysis is a
successful method in determination of the sequence of yielding

For studying the nonlinear behavior of the five-story


frame designed as ductile, nominally ductile, GLD, and
retrofitted GLD, the ground motion data of the El Centro
(1940), Olympia (1949), Imperial Valley (1979), and Erzincan
(1992) earthquakes, shown in Fig. 5, were used for the analyses.
The detailed results of the analyses are presented only for the
Erzincan earthquake. However, the damage indices, maximum
top story displacements and the interstory drifts are presented
for all the aforementioned. In this study the peak acceleration is
used as a measure of intensity. The intensities of all earthquakes
are adjusted based on peak acceleration to yield similar
intensities. The duration of an earthquake is also expected to
contribute to inelastic dynamic response of the structure. The
primary effect of earthquake duration on structural response is
to increase cumulative plastic deformation. It is believed that
most of the damage to the structure occurs in the first 5 to 10 s
of an earthquake, which was also proved to be the case for the

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

2373

of all columns at 2.67 s after the start of the analysis. The


flexural yielding of the right ends of the beams in the lower
two floors started before the formation of the plastic hinges at
the bases of the first story columns. The final state of the frame
at the end of the analysis is shown in Fig. 6(a).
The overall structural damage determined by IDARC2D is
0.063 which refers to a slight degree of damage and a repairable
state of the building. The top story relative displacement time
history prediction by IDARC2D for the ductile structure is
shown in Fig. 7(a).
Fig. 8(a) shows the maximum interstory drift for each
story in the frame during the seismic excitation. The first and
second stories experienced the maximum drift ratio of 0.50%.
According to the SEAOC guidelines [18], the structure had
operational performance, light overall building damage, and
negligible damage to vertical load carrying elements.
5.2. Nominally ductile structure

Fig. 5. Accelerograms for (a) El Centro (1940), (b) Olympia (1949),


(c) Imperial Valley (1979), (d) Erzincan (1992).

earthquakes that were selected in this study. However, in this


paper, the sensitivity of the seismic structural response to the
earthquake duration is not investigated.
For consideration of the reduced flexural stiffness, the
seismic provision of the Canadian Concrete Standard proposes
the reduced value of 0.7Ig for the columns and 0.4Ig for the
beams. For the GLD structure the reduced values of 0.49Ig for
the interior, and 0.33Ig for exterior columns and 0.32Ig for the
beams is recommended based on the results of the component
tests by Bracci [17]. For the modeling of the retrofitted GLD
frame in IDARC2D, the results of the component tests as
reported by Aycardi et al. [8] were used for the calculation of
the reduced stiffness of the members. The initial stiffness of the
retrofitted column with applied prestressing was identified as
E Icol = 0.71(E Icol )g .
At the base of retrofitted column where the longitudinal
rebars are discontinuous and not prestressed, the initial stiffness
is considered as E Icol = 0.50(E Icol )g . The initial stiffness of
the beams is assumed to be E Ibeam = 0.32(E Ibeam )g .

For detecting the behavior of the nominally ductile structure


the input ground motion was scaled 0.30g. Flexural cracks
initiated at the bases of the columns in first story and the right
ends of the beams at the first and fourth stories.
At the end of the test, yielding is detected at the ends of
beams in the first story. The bases of all four columns in the first
floor experienced flexural yielding accompanied by flexural
cracks on the top of the first story columns. The final state of
the frame at the end of the analysis is shown in Fig. 6(b). The
overall structural damage determined by IDARC2D is 0.080
which refers to a slight degree of damage and a repairable state
of the building. The top story relative displacement time history
prediction by IDARC2D for the nominally ductile structure is
shown in Fig. 7(b).
Fig. 8(b) shows the maximum interstory drift for each story
in the frame during the seismic excitation. The first story
experienced the maximum drift ratio of 0.74%. According to
the SEAOC guidelines, the structure had life safe performance,
moderate overall building damage, and light to moderate
damage to vertical load carrying elements, where substantial
capacity to carry gravity load remains.
A comparison of damage indices for beams and columns
for ductile and nominally ductile frames for all four selected
ground motions is presented in Table 5. Similar to the
experimental and analytical results for the 2 story frames in
the first part of this paper, the beams in the nominally ductile
frame suffered more damage than the corresponding beams in
the ductile frame while the columns suffered less damage.
5.3. GLD structure

5.1. Ductile structure


For detecting the behavior of the ductile structure, the input
ground motion was scaled to a PHA of 0.30g. The IDARC2D
simulation showed that the ductile structure behaved according
to the capacity design philosophy indicated in the Canadian
code. Flexural cracks initiated at the left ends of the beams
throughout the lower three stories, before cracking of the bases

For detecting the behavior of the GLD structure the input


ground motion was first scaled to a PHA value of 0.10g and
then in another analysis to the maximum resistible ground
motion with a PHA of 0.15g. For the first simulation with input
ground motion scaled to a PHA value of 0.10g, after cracking
of both ends of the columns and exterior beams in the first
story, plastic hinges developed only at the bases of the first

2374

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Fig. 6. Final state of the frame after scaled ground. (a) Ductile (0.30g), (b) Nominally ductile (0.30g), (c) GLD (0.10g), (d) GLD (0.15g), (e) Retrofitted GLD
(0.15g), (f) Retrofitted GLD (0.30g).

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

2375

Fig. 7. Top story displacement time history after scaled ground motion. (a) Ductile (0.30g), (b) Nominally ductile (0.30g), (c) GLD (0.10g), (d) GLD (0.15g), (e)
Retrofitted GLD (0.15g), (f) Retrofitted GLD (0.30g).

floor columns. The final state of the frame at the end of the
analysis is shown in Fig. 6(c). The overall structural damage
determined by IDARC2D is 0.177 which refers to a minor
degree of damage and a repairable state of the building.
In the second analysis with input ground motion scaled to
a PHA value of 0.15g, flexural cracks initiated at the base and
top of the columns at the first story. Yielding of the elements
started with the flexural yielding of the bases of the interior
and then exterior columns in the first story. At the end of the
test, yielding was detected at both ends of all columns in the
first floor indicating a column side-sway mode of failure of the
structure. The final state of the frame at the end of the analysis
is shown in Fig. 6(d).
The overall structural damage determined by IDARC2D is
0.315 which refers to a moderate degree of damage of the
building.
The top story relative displacement time history prediction
by IDARC2D for the GLD structure for both scaled ground
motions are shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d). Fig. 8(c) and (d)
show the maximum interstory drift for each story in the

GLD frame during both scaled seismic excitations. The first


story experienced maximum drift ratios of 1.45% and 2.84%
during scaled ground motions of 0.10g and 0.15g, respectively.
According to the SEAOC guidelines, the structure had life safe
performance, moderate overall building damage, and light to
moderate damage to vertical load carrying elements for the
scaled ground motions of 0.10g, and has collapsed during
scaled ground motions of 0.15g.
5.4. Retrofitted GLD structure
For the evaluation of the enhancement in the seismic
performance of the retrofitted GLD frame an analysis is
performed using the input ground motion which is scaled to
a PHA value of 0.15g.
It is observed that as a result of the retrofit the structure
is able to withstand this ground motion and only the
column bases experienced yielding which shows the successful
implementation of the capacity based design to change the
column-sway failure to the desirable beam-sway failure mode.
The final state of the frame at the end of the analysis is

2376

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Fig. 8. Maximum interstory drift for each story after scaled ground motion. (a) Ductile (0.30g), (b) Nominally ductile (0.30g), (c) GLD (0.10g), (d) GLD (0.15g),
(e) Retrofitted GLD (0.15g), (f) Retrofitted GLD (0.30g).
Table 5
Damage indices for beams and columns for the scaled ground motions to a PHA
of 0.30g
Ground motion

Story

Ductile
Beam

Column

Nominally
ductile
Beam
Column

Imperial Valley

5
4
3
2
1

0.017
0.023
0.026
0.041
0.035

0
0
0.002
0
0.009

0
0.026
0.015
0.037
0.013

0
0
0.014
0
0.034

El Centro

5
4
3
2
1

0.068
0.07
0.071
0.073
0.044

0
0
0.002
0.01
0.016

0.013
0.042
0.039
0.043
0.032

0.018
0
0.006
0.004
0.034

Olympia

5
4
3
2
1

0.039
0.049
0.068
0.087
0.045

0
0
0
0.002
0.032

0.023
0.031
0.008
0.007
0.043

0
0
0.022
0.041
0.023

Erzincan

5
4
3
2
1

0.014
0.021
0.03
0.054
0.035

0
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.035

0.005
0.037
0.032
0.009
0.046

0.03
0
0.008
0.04
0.04

shown in Fig. 6(e). The overall structural damage determined


by IDARC2D is 0.064 which refers to a slight degree of damage
and a repairable state of the building.
For the evaluation of the performance of the retrofitted GLD
structure to the input ground motion which is scaled to a
PHA value of 0.30g, a separate analysis is performed and the
following results are observed.
As can be seen in Fig. 6(f), the column bases experienced
yielding while the top of the first story columns cracked. Except
the first storys beams which yielded at both ends, all the other
beams experienced cracking at both ends.
The overall structural damage determined by IDARC2D is
0.211 which refers to a minor-moderate degree of damage to
the building. The top story relative displacement time history
prediction by IDARC2D for the retrofitted GLD structure,
where the ground motion is scaled to a PHA value of 0.15g
and 0.30g, are shown in Fig. 7(e) and (f).
Fig. 8(e) and (f) show the maximum interstory drift for
each story in the retrofitted GLD frame during both scaled
seismic excitation. The second story experienced the maximum
drift ratio of 0.9% during scaled ground motion to a PHA
of 0.15g. During the scaled ground motion to a PHA of
0.30g the first story had a maximum drift ratio of 2.30%.
According to the SEAOC guidelines, the structure had life

2377

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380


Table 6
Overall damage index after selected earthquakes
Frame, PGA

Imperial Valley El Centro Olympia Erzincan

Ductile (0.30g)
Nominally ductile (0.30g)
GLD (0.10g)
GLD (0.15g)
Retrofitted GLD (0.15g)
Retrofitted GLD (0.30g)

0.042
0.041
0.127
0.315
0.058
0.100

0.069
0.057
0.132
0.177
0.065
0.077

0.071
0.063
0.142
0.203
0.063
0.128

0.063
0.080
0.177
0.315
0.064
0.211

Table 7
Maximum top story displacement during selected earthquakes (mm)
Frame, PGA

Imperial Valley El Centro Olympia Erzincan

Ductile (0.30g)
37
Nominally ductile (0.30g) 47
GLD (0.10g)
90
GLD (0.15g)
171
Retrofitted GLD (0.15g)
70
Retrofitted GLD (0.30g)
141

95
86
96
143
52
108

96
66
109
125
89
151

60
80
145
171
111
220

safe performance, moderate overall building damage, and light


to moderate damage to vertical load carrying elements where
substantial capacity to carry gravity load remains during scaled
ground motion of 0.15g, and a near collapse state followed by
severe overall building damage for the scaled ground motion to
a PHA of 0.30g.

All of the mentioned frames had similar behavior when


subjected to the other three selected earthquakes. The overall
damage indices and maximum top story displacements are
presented in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. The overall damage
indices for the ductile and nominally ductile correspond to a
slight degree of damage and a repairable state of the structure
for the scaled ground motion to a PHA of 0.30g.
The GLD frames have a minor and moderate degree of
damage of the frame for the scaled ground motion to PHA
of 0.10g and 0.15g, while for the Retrofitted GLD frame
the damage indices refer to a minor and moderate degree of
damage for the scaled ground motion PHA of 0.15g and 0.30g,
respectively.
Table 8 compares the percentage of maximum interstory
drifts for the mentioned four types of frame during the
mentioned earthquakes. The average values of maximum
interstory drift of all stories for each frame for all four
earthquakes follow a similar trend as those shown in Fig. 8 for
the Erzincan earthquake.
5.5. Static push-over analysis
It was concluded by Heidebrecht and Naumoski [2] that
pushover analyses are not able to simulate the behavior of
RC moment resisting frames subjected to strong seismic
ground motions. The pushover analysis underestimates the

Table 8
Maximum inter-story drift percentage during selected earthquakes
Frame (PGA)

Story level

Imperial Valley

EI Centro

Olympia

Erzincan

Ductile (0.30g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

21
32
30
22
15

37
62
79
83
73

52
79
74
63
50

51
51
43
32
22

Normally ductile (0.30g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

33
33
33
29
20

70
58
54
53
37

62
58
44
40
27

74
61
50
51
37

GLD (0.10g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

102
71
55
42
25

102
73
59
45
28

120
82
67
61
39

145
99
87
73
46

GLD (0.15g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

284
96
72
57
34

152
97
86
68
38

185
90
90
85
54

284
96
72
57
34

Retrofitted GLD (0.15g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

47
57
52
46
34

39
48
39
32
24

57
71
68
61
48

70
90
84
67
49

Retrofitted GLD (0.30g)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

119
108
104
92
68

90
94
73
63
47

141
117
106
86
61

230
174
138
109
80

2378

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

Fig. 9. Final state of the frame after the push-over analysis. (a) Ductile, (b) Nominally ductile, (c) GLD, (d) Retrofitted GLD.

deformations associated with specific levels of maximum drift.


The primary benefit of pushover analysis is to obtain a measure
of overstrength and to obtain a sense of the general capacity
of the structure to sustain inelastic deformation. Pushover
analysis identifies the locations that are likely to be subjected
to large inelastic deformations, which helps in the evaluation
of the performance of the structure, and design of member
detailing. As was mentioned earlier, the pushover interstory
drift distributions are essentially first mode while the dynamic
interstory drift distributions contain significant second mode
contributions. This implies that the static pushover analysis
for irregular structures can not be accurate. The coupling
between the lateral displacements and the torsional rotations for
buildings with irregularity in plan, and also higher mode effects
for vertically irregular buildings cause the total response not to

be dominated by the first mode. These higher mode effects are


not captured in the static pushover analysis.
The ductile frame is designed for a base shear of 0.165 W,
while the nominally ductile structure is designed for a base
shear of 0.33 W. The sequences of the members yielding for
the mentioned four types of structure are shown in Fig. 9(a)
through (d). The number in the bracket indicates the sequence
of yielding of the corresponding beam, and the number in
the parenthesis indicates the sequence of yielding of the
corresponding column.
The first yielding of a beam in the ductile frame occurred at
base shear coefficient of 0.1670 at an overstrength ratio (base
shear divided by design base shear) of 1.012. The first yielding
of a column occurred at a base shear coefficient of 0.2738,
indicating an overstrength ratio of 1.66.

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

2379

Fig. 10. Comparison of the push-over analyses for four types of structures.

In the nominally ductile frame the first yielding of a beam


occurred at a base shear coefficient of 0.3994 at an overstrength
ratio of 1.21, while the first yielding of a column occurred at
a base shear coefficient of 0.4162, indicating an overstrength
ratio of 1.26.
The IDARC2D pushover analyses give useful insights with
regards to the sequence of yielding of the elements of each
structure. In both ductile and nominally ductile structures there
is no plastic hinge at the top of the first story columns, while
the bases of all columns have developed plastic hinges in both
frames at the end of the test. However, there is some flexural
cracking at the top of the first story columns in the nominally
ductile frame. The mode of failure is beam-sway rather that a
soft-story failure caused by a column side-sway mechanism for
both frames.
In the GLD frame, the first plastic hinges developed at the
top and bottom of the first story columns, indicating a soft-story
failure cause by a column sidesway mechanism, which is not
desirable in the performance of structures during earthquakes.
The application of column retrofitting to the GLD frame
caused the strong column-weak beam mode to change the
failure from column-sway to beam-sway. The first plastic
hinges occurred in the columns bases as was decided, followed
by yielding of the both ends of the beams in the first story.
The base shear-top displacement (percentage of 16 m as
the height of the building) curves for these structures are
compared in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the GLD structure
although not designed for earthquake lateral force, has some
inherent lateral strength to withstand the maximum base shear
of 0.09 W without collapse. The ductile structure was able to
sustain a maximum base shear of 0.32 W, while the nominally
ductile structure was able to sustain a maximum base shear of
0.53 W. The retrofitted GLD frames lateral load resistance was
enhanced so as to be able to withstand the maximum base shear
of 0.25 W.
The pattern of the plastic hinging obtained from the pushover analysis showed that in the ductile structure, the yielding
of the bases of the columns happened after the yielding of one
end of the beams, followed by yielding at the other end of the
beams. No plastic hinge was observed at the top of a column,
indicating the successful application of the strong columnweak beam philosophy. In the nominally ductile structure after
yielding of one end of beams in the fourth story, the bases of
all columns started to yield. This was followed by formation of
plastic hinges at the ends of all beams in the first and second

stories. At the end of the analysis flexural cracking can be


observed at the top of the first storys columns.
In the GLD frame, the immediate formation of the plastic
hinges at the top and bottom of the first story columns before the
yielding of the beams indicated the formation of the soft-story
mechanism as a consequence of weak column-strong beam
behavior.
In the retrofitted GLD frame, the first plastic hinges occurred
only in the first storys column bases followed by yielding of the
ends of the beams in the first story. This shows the successful
application of the strong column-weak beam to change the
mode of failure from column-sway to beam-sway. Again the
pushover analysis was shown to be successful in observing the
mode of failure of each type of the frame.
6. Conclusions
(1) The IDARC2D simulation was helpful in determination
of the seismic performance of the structures in terms
of the sequence of yielding of the members, maximum
displacement of the top, and damage state of the
structure. The IDARC2D results correlated well with the
experimental evidence from elsewhere [4].
(2) For minor earthquakes, the inherent lateral strength of GLD
structures was adequate to resist seismic forces and avoid
major damage. For severe earthquake, the weak columnstrong beam behavior resulted in a column sidesway mode
of failure. The severe degree of damage has rendered the
structure irreparable.
(3) The results of both the static pushover analysis and
the dynamic analysis using IDARC2D, confirm that the
ductile, and nominally ductile structural system proposed
by Canadian codes responds very effectively in resisting
high levels of lateral loading. Since the pushover analysis
does not replicate the actual dynamic relationship between
drifts and element damage, it is essential to use inelastic
dynamic analysis to investigate both element damage and
drift during various levels of dynamic excitation.
(4) Both ductile and nominally ductile structures were able to
withstand the loading of major earthquakes without severe
damage. Although the ductile structure was designed for
half of the value of the design lateral load of the nominally
ductile structure, the incorporation of good detailing and
also the implementation of a capacity based design enabled
the structure to perform well during major earthquakes. The

2380

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

R. Sadjadi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23652380

state of the plastic hinges in the columns and beams showed


the successful application of the strong-column-weak beam
philosophy implemented in the design of the ductile frames.
Pushover analysis performed by IDARC2D is a very useful
tool for a quick evaluation of the seismic performance of
structures by stating the mode of failure of the structure.
The contribution of the slab to the moment capacity of
the beam in the GLD frame makes the strong beamweak column behavior dominate the mode of failure over
the column-sidesway mechanism, while by application of
concrete jacketing to the columns, the strong column-weak
beam behavior causes the desirable beam-sway failure to
dominate the response. This can also reduce the damage
in the columns by transferring the inelastic deformation to
the beams. The bases of the columns were intentionally
designed to have a smaller moment capacity to enable
the plastic hinging of the columns bases. This was
implemented in the analytical simulation by the appropriate
modification in the flexural stiffness of the columns bases.
The static pushover analysis reproduces comparable
heightwise distributions of drift and element damage
that occur during the dynamic response of the structure.
This is the result of the fact that the pushover analysis
using the code-type loading distribution simulates only
the fundamental mode response (Stonehouse et al. [19]).
The IDARC2D analyses results, showed that for the first
mode, the modal participation factor for ductile, nominally
ductile, and GLD structures were, 0.6175, 0.6293, and
0.6445 respectively. This means that the first mode plays
an essential role in the dynamic response. It is important
to note that the results of the static pushover analysis
are acceptable only for the regular structures where the
response is dominated by the first mode only.
By using an analytical model, it is possible to assess the
seismic resistance of existing structures, and propose an
appropriate repair or upgrade system after determination
of the performance of different members and the mode of
failure of the structure.

References
[1] CSA. Design of concrete structures for buildings. In: Standard CANA23.3-94. Rexdale (ON, Canada): Canadian Standards Association; 1994.
[2] Heidebrecht AC, Naumoski N. Seismic performance of ductile medium
height reinforced concrete frame buildings designed in accordance with
the provisions of the 1995 National Building Code of Canada. Canadian
Journal Civil Engineering 1999;26(5):60617.
[3] NBCC. National building code of Canada. Ottawa (ON): Associate

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

[18]
[19]

Committee on the National Building Code, National Research Council


of Canada; 1995.
Filiatrault A, Lachapelle E, Lamontagne P. Seismic performance of
ductile and nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting
frames. I: Experimental study. Canadian Journal Civil Engineering 1998;
25(2).
Filiatrault A, Lachapelle E, Lamontagne P. Seismic performance of
ductile and nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting
frames. II: Analytical study. Canadian Journal Civil Engineering 1998;
25(2).
Bracci JM, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: Part IDesign
and properties of a one-third scale model structure. Technical report
NCEER-92-0027. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
SUNY/Buffalo; 1992.
Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Hoffmann G, Mander JB. Gravity load
designed reinforced concrete buildings part I: Seismic evaluation of
existing construction. ACI/Structural Journal 1995;92(3):34354.
Aycardi LE, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: Part
II, Experimental performance of subassemblages. Technical report
NCEER-92-0028. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
SUNY/Buffalo; 1992.
Bracci JM, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB. Evaluation of seismic retrofit of
reinforced concrete frame structures: Part IIExperimental performance
and analytical study of a retrofitted structural model. Technical report
NCEER-92-0031. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
SUNY/Buffalo; 1992.
Reinhorn AM et al. IDARC2D Version 6.0 - A computer program for the
inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, latest release
retrieved from http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/idarc2d50; 2004.
ACI 318-63. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. Detroit
(MI): American Concrete Institute; 1968.
SAP2000. Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and design of
structures. Ver.8.0. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures, Inc.;
2002.
Park YJ, Ang AH-S, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis and damagelimiting design of R/C buildings. Civil engineering studies. Technical
report No. SRS 516. University of Illinois, Urbana; 1984.
Lee H-S, Woo S-W. Seismic performance of a 3-story RC frame in a lowseismicity region. Engineering Structures 2002;24(6):71934.
COSMOS. Consortium of organizations for strong-motion observation
systems. Available from http://db.cosmos-eq.org/scripts/default.plx.
Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO the Maori god of volcanoes and earthquakes.
Computer Program Library, 27 January 1996 Release. Christchurch (New
Zealand): Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury;
1996.
Bracci JM. Experimental and analytical study of seismic damage and
retrofit of lightly reinforced concrete structures in low seismicity zones.
Ph.D. dissertation. New York: Department of Civil Engineering, State
University of New York at Buffalo; 1992.
SEAOC. Vision 2000A framework for performance based earthquake
engineering, vol. 1. 1995.
Stonehouse B, Heidebrecht AC, Kianoush MR. Evaluation of the level
of seismic protection afforded to reinforced concrete shear wall systems.
Canadian Journal Civil Engineering 1999;26(5):57289.