An objective seismic damage index to evaluate RC structures

J.C. Vielma a A.H. Barbat a,b S. Oller a
a Politechnical

University of Catalonia (UPC), Edificio C1, Campus Nord, C/ Gran Capit´ an s/n, 08034, Barcelona, Spain
b Corresponding

author

Abstract In modern earthquake-resistant design codes is considered that the structural elements (columns and beams) have a nonlinear behaviour during the action of an earthquake similar to the considered in design process. This implies that these elements are damaged and it is very interesting for the designer to be able to estimate the expected global damage in the structure and to relate it to the design ductility, and also with the ductility demand. The damage index calculated applying finite elements method, have values that do not reflect the deterioration in the case of buildings designed for low ductility, this feature is contrary with the damage index calculated for ductile buildings. Therefore, in this work an objective damage index is proposed, based on the ductility and the values of the elastic and ultimate stiffness, that is independent of the selected structural typology. The procedure is illustrated by means of the assessment of the index from damage to three buildings, two of which have been designed for low ductility (building with waffle slabs and framed building with wide beams) and a third one that is framed building with depth beams, designed for high ductility. For the three buildings the static nonlinear response has been determined by means of a force-based procedure, and also the performance point corresponding to the three buildings are calculated applying the N2 method. The results obtained demonstrate that the objective damage index proposed provides values that characterize suitably the damage suffered by the three buildings, at the instant of collapse.

Key words: Damage Index, Seismic Damage, Pushover Analysis, Limit States, RC buildings PACS:

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

11 January 2008

the process to transform calculated demands into demands that suitably quantify the behaviour of the buildings. Deppending on the load type. They are computed from numarical simulations of structures due lateral static or dynamic forces.1 Introduction In current earthquake-resistant design procedures elastic procedures are using. β is a parameter that is adjusted depending on the materials and the structural type. that represent seismic forces. For RC structures. Py is the yield strength and dEh is the dissipated hyteretic energy. But the concept of ductility also impply that the structure reachs a state of damage when are subjected to earthquakes. is a questionable part of the global procedure. Among the indices which have served as the baseline for many researches.[1]. These damage indexes include some of the main characteristics of the non-linear response (static or dynamic) of the structure. applying Response reduction factors to reduce elastic response to convert it in equivalent elasto-plastic response. This damage index is at local level. ie. mainly based in the possibility of correlate this Damage Indexes with the Limit States of the Performace-based design. damage indexes can be clasified according to the parameters considerated in their formulation. δu is the last movement. This parameters are related to: maximum lateral displacements. For Kunnath [2] in the performancebased design procedures. it can be citing the proposed by Park and Ang [3] that can determine the damage in an element. Global seismic damage indexes provides a measure of the structural deterioration. based on the non-linear dynamic response by the following expression: δm β + δu δu Py DIe = dEh (1) Where δm is the maximum displacement of the element. Some indices measure the overall seismic damage of a structure from its local damage. however it is possible to apply this index in the computation of values for an specific structural 2 . For this reason. the contribution of cumulative damage in the structural elements in a given instant to the structure being subjected to a seismic demand. plastic dissipated energy and a combination of both. it is necessary to consider index that accounts in objective way the seismic damage in buildings.This approach implicitly accepts that structures has a plastic deformation capacity without loss of stability. It is ussefull for the structural designer the assessment of the magnitude of this damage. at an element. Damage Indexes have received special attention during past two decades. various damage indexes have been formulated. and coorrelate this with the structural ductility and the dcutility demands Vielma et al.

µ is the design ductility.[4] proposes the following damage index: Ki Ki−1 DIe = 1 − (2) Where DIe is the damage index of the beam or column. is the proposed for Gupta et al. They formulated an expression basen on the relationship between the ultimate and yielding displacements. Skærbæk et al. have the shortcoming that produces consistent results in the case of 3 . Also this formulation includes the design ductility value according to: xmax /z00 − 1 µ−1 DI = (4) Among the desirable features that should have a damage index. For non linear analisys due static horizontal loads. For this reason. that is equivalent to ultimate and yielding stiffnesses. Period degradation provides a measure of the stiffness degradation. • It should allow the location and quantification of damage to the index correlated with the integrity of the structure. [6]. it is usefull to considerate damage indexes that incorporate the stiffness degradation. or for the whole structure. Ki is the current tangent stiffness and Ki−1 is the initial tangent stiffness. especially those calculated with the stiffnesses relationship. • Must remain valid and meaning through the State Boundaries of service and collapse.level. These damage indexes. αy is a stiffness-degradation dependent coefficient and T0 is the elastic period of the structure. • There should be sensitive to changes in the properties of the structures or the acelerogramas applied. Other damage index based on stiffness degradation. Catbas and Aktan [7] includes: • Must be sensitive to the accumulation of deterioration. Hori and Inoue [5] has been formulated an expression to calculate this period degradation based on the design ductility as follows: µ T0 αy Tµ = 2π (3) where Tµ is te period on the collapse state.

Not all the materials used with structural purposes follow a behavior that can be asimilable to the damage (degradation/loss of stiffness) instead their behavior follow the Plasticity Theory (development of irreversible deformations). [13] and [14] 4 . However. The following analysis is done starting from the assumed hypothesis that the non-linear behaviour of the structures follows the principles of the Mechanicaldamage Theory Oliver et al. Other materials combined both behaviour. [10]. in the case of structures designed to low ductilities. in this article it is developed an objective seismic damage index. if the unload branch is paralel to the load branch. it is necessary to observe the unload branch in Figure 1.structures with ductile behavior. formulated as a function that depends on the stiffnesses relationship and maximum ductility values. However. fulfills the fundamental thermodynamics principles. framed buildings with wide beams or waffle slabbs buildings. [11]. which consist in three RC buildings that have been designed for different values of ductility. the behaviour corresponds to plasticity. This shortcoming does not allow that the referenced indexes can be used in order to carry out an objective characterization of the damage in restricted-ductility buildings. The last affirmation can be validated by laboratory test or by numerical simulations using the Mixing Theory of simple substances Car et al. 2 Formulation The above mentioned indexes. Numerical examples of the application of this index are presented. when the non-linear response of restricted-ductility structures is studied. and characterized by the corresponding performance point computed by the method N2 Fajfar [9]. see Figure 1. this damage indexes does not describe objectively the overall state of damage when the response is close to the collapse threshold. have been developed in order to quantify the global damage in ductile structures. To determine whether damage or plastic behaviour has occurred. This theory. on the other hand.e. It is accepted that damage has occurred if the unload branch pass throgh the origin. computed directly from the capacity curve of the buildings. based on the continuum mechanics. it is possible to observe that the damage index velues corresponding to collapse threshold. typified on the Spanish seismic code NCSE-02 [8]. i. are lower than the corresponding to ductile structures Vielma et al. independent of the structural typology. Reinforced concrete has a combined behaviour (plasticity and damage) but the main feature corresponds to the degradation Oller [12]. To overcome this drawback. which is the case of the RC structures. and they have loss of stiffness with irreversible deformations.

Determination of the initial stiffness from capacity curve 5 . For an structure an static non-linear analysis (pushover analysis) is applied. Schemes of the damage and plastic behaviour The following procedure has been proposed with the aim to describe the structural degradation under seismic loads starting from a few non-linear characteristics.Fig. Fig. The resultant curve called Capacity curve. 2. see Figure 2. Calculated roof displacements ∆ are plotted vs base shear V . 1. This feature allows the procedure in a simple way and its application is quickly and efficiently in evaluating the seismic behaviour. has a initial slope that corresponds to the initial stiffness K0 .

This aim is possible if the damage index is normalized respect to the maximum damage that can occurs obj in the structure. However. this way to compute damage values possibilitates a misunderstandings: structural designer can interpretate that ductile structures have a greather damage than the dcorresponding to fragile ones. 3 Numerical Examples In this section. the objective damage index 0 ≤ DP ≤ 1 achieved by a structure at any point P is defined as: DP (1 − KP /K0 )µ 1−µ = = DP DC µ µ−1 obj DP = (6) For example. can be evaluated according to the continuum-damage mechanical: 1−µ Vy /∆u 1 KC =1− =1− = Ko Vy /∆y µ µ DC = 1 − (5) According to Equation 5. Equation 6 provides that maximum damage would reach the structure subjected to earthquake prescribed by the code. is a framed building with wide beams. 6 . resulting from the intersection between inelastic spectrum (demand) and the capacity curve (obtanied from pushover analysis). The first building is designed to a ductility value of two. 75 F ragile structure µ = 2 ⇒ DC = 0. This shortcoming impply that the damage index must be reformulated. the damage at the point C where the maximun damage is reached. P might be the performance point.If the yield base shear is knonw. the maximum damage is developed at the collapse point C . then it is possible to affirm that: Ductile structure µ = 4 ⇒ DC = 0. Under these conditions. ductile structures have a damage value greather than the damage value reached for fragile structures at the collapse point. at the Collapse Limit State. Thus. and for a specific ductility value postulated in seismic code. 50 In other words. this impply that the damage deppends only on the adopted structural ductility. in order to avoid its deppendence on the structurla fragility. the objective damage index is applied on evaluating the nonlinear behaviour of three buildings that are designed according differents ductility levels. is a waffle slabs buildings. The second one.

The selected pattern of the forces corresponds a inverted traingle. levels forces are recalculated and the non-linear analysis is performed again. designed to ductility value of four. 3. In next iteration. In the Figure 5 is shonw a typical capacity curve obtained from non-linear analysis and the associated curve of finite elements-based damage. This procedure has a shortcoming that it is stable until a singular point is reached. This method has the advantage of that the pattern of forces is suitably to reproduce the seismic forces and produce a damage pattern that is similar to the damage patern that an earthquake produce. Iterations are repeated until the covergence criteria is reached. In order to avoid this shortcoming. Cases studied Cases studied consist on three RC buildings designed according 7 .designed to ductility of two. in which a widespread distribution of plastic hinges at beams and columns is observed. a force-based procedure is used. corresponding to the collapse threshold. In this figure. and the third one is a framed moment-resisting building. A well criteria to initialize the iterations it is recommendable to start from a base shear that corresponds to the design shear base. point B corresponding to the formation of the plastic hinges at the end of the columns and point C. Ths procedure requires some iterations to achieve its convergence. base shear is incremented. Forces distribution according to inverted triangle pattern Seismic equivallent forces are computed to all building’s levels. this shape is reccomendable only if the buildings have plan and elevation regularities. the collapse displacement is obtained when a minimun value of finite element-based damage index is reached. In order to compute the non-linear response of these buildings a force-bases procedure is applied. Fn F2 F1 h2 h1 hn Fig.. when foces values deppends on the level height. it is possible to identify three important points that reflects the main features of the non linear response: point A corresponding to the formation of first plastic hinges at the ends of the beams. that obviously does not produce the wanted maximum displacement or not fulfill the convergence criteria. This value is used to compute the initial levels forces. see Figure 3. a singular point is a point in which the base shear does not increases with the displacement increases. The algoritm of the complete prcedure is shown in the Figure 4.

span longitude. thus it is necessary to define elements for the confined zone near the nodes and in the middle of beams and columns. Waffle slabs building have non uniform spans because its columns are not aligned according to straight lines. respectively. and are 4. All the strips have a particular combination of materials (concrete or reinforce steel) expressed in percentage. 8 . The buildings have 15mx24m in plan dimensions. This consist in to split sections in strips parallels to the main flexure axis. does not form resistant frames. Algoritm of force-based non-linear analysis to Spanish seismic code NCSE-02. in Figure 7 a typical frame discretization is show. Longitudes of the confinement zones deppend on the dimensions of the sections of beams or colums. interstory high or diameter of the reinforcement steel. Discretization was performed according to the different confinment applied. The plan and elevation views of the three buildings are sow in Figure 6. and consecuantly. Sectional discretization is also applied. [16] procedure. [15]. they are a waffle slabs building and a framed building with wide beams.Framed buildings have four and three uniform spaced spans in x and x direction. The buildings are modelized as 2D frames and equivalent frame in the case of the waffle slabs building.5m high. Mata et al. In the second group is a moment-resisting frame building. Reinforcement chracteristics are incorporated by means of the application of the Mixing Theory.Fig. 4. for two different ductility: low (µ = 2) and intermediate (µ = 4). The effect of the different confinement provided by the longitudinal and transversal reinforcement is incorporated with the modiffication of the strength of the concrete according to the Mander et al. Two buildings belong to the first goup.

tipyfied on the seismic codes by the inelastic spectrum.Fig. normalized roof displacement (∆/H ) of the whole structure modelized as a multiple degree of freedon (MDOF) system. it is necessary to intersect the capacity cuve with the demand. Algoritm of force-based non-linear analysis Capacity curves are product of the static non-linear analysis of the frames or equivalent frame. 5. Therefore it is necessary to convert the non-linear of the MDOF into the response of the equivalent SDOF by means of the dynamic characteristics of the first mode. These capacity cuves plots normalized base shear (V /W ) vs. Roof displacements are converted in pseudo-displacements according to the Equation 7: 9 . deppending of the case studied. In order to determine its performance point.

obtained from dynamic characteristics of the frames: n i=1 n i=1 FPM = mi φ1. Algoritm of force-based non-linear analysis Sd = δc FPM (7) where Sd is the pseudo-displacement.i is the normalized amplitude of the first mode at a story i. δc is the roof displacement and F P M is the modal participation factor. inelastic spectrum is plotted in Sa vs. 6. This is achieved 10 . mi is the mass of the story i.i mi φ2 1.Fig. Sd format. φ1.i (8) In Equation 8 n is the story number. that requires the transformation of the base shear of the capacity curve into pseudo-acceleration. By the other hand.

Fig. This conversion is achieved by appling the Equation 11 Sa gT 2 4π 2 Sd = (11) here. that consist in to determine a bilinear idealized shape of the capacity spectrum by following these steps: 11 . In this article the performance points are computed through the N2 procedure. g is the gravity and T is the first mode period. Typical frame discretization through the application of Equation 9: V /W α Sa = (9) where V is the base shear.Sa format. he codes prescribes spectra in T vs. The performace point represents the point with maximum lateral displacement of the equivalent SDOF system. it is necessary to convert this format into Sd vs. Once transformations have been made.i ) n 2 i=1 mi φ1. W is the seismic weight and α is a dimensionless parameter computed from: ( 2 n i=1 mi φ1. Thus. it is necessary to plot together the capacity spectrum and the elastic and inelastic demand spectra in order to obtain the performance point. 7.Sa format. produced for seismid demand.i α= (10) Generally.

Capacity curves of case studied are show in Figures 11. • The elastic branch is determined by means of a secant from the origin to a point at the capacity spectrum with 60% of the maximum base shear. 12 and 13. that limit the branch of constant acceleration to the decreasing one. 1. the base shear V is normalized respect to the siesmic wieght W . defined as:   (µ − 1) T + 1 TC Rµ =   when T ≤ TC when T > TC (12) µ In Equation 12 T is the first mode period. In these figures. provides the displacement of the performance point. The intersection of the projection of the elastic branch of the capacity spectrum with the elastic demand spectrum. Oth12 . An alternative procedure is to determine the performance point by means of the intersection of the inelastic branch of the idealizes capacity spectrum with the inelastic demand spectrum.• The plastic branch of the capacity spectrum must be horizontal.2 Capacity curve Idealized capacity curve Elastic spectrum Demand spectrum 0. 8. Determination of the performance point of the waffle slabs building Computed values of the performance points displacements are show in Table 1. ensuring the compensation of thr areas above and below of the plastic branche.4 Performance point 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Sd (mm) Fig.8 Sa (g) 0. computed from the elastic demand spectrum reduced by a response reduction factor Rµ. in order to transform the displacements of the equivalent SDOF system to the MDOF one. It is necessary to point out that tese displacements are computed by applying the Equation 7. µ is the design ductility and TC is the corner period of the elastic design spectrum.

2 Capacity curve Idealized capacity curve Elastic Spectrum Demand spectrum 0. Determination of the performance point of the framed building with wide beams 1. it can be seen the stiffnesses evolution.8 Performance point Sa (g) 0. 9. the performance points are nearer to the collapse threshold than the in the case of the moment-resisting framed building.1. Note that for restricted ductility buildings. In Figure shows the evolution of the dam13 . The objective damage index is computed by applying the Equation 6 and is plotted vs the normalized roof drift. from the elastic behavior to the collapse threshold. 10.4 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Sd (mm) Fig.2 Capacity curve Idealized capacity curve Elastic spectrum Demand spectrum 0.8 Sa (g) 0. Determination of the performance point of the moment-resisting framed building erwise.4 Performance point 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Sd (mm) Fig.

.07 170.18 Base shear coefficient (V/W) 0. by the other hand the curves of the two restricted-ductility buildings have a pronunciated slope near to the collapse threshold. Table 2 Damage index (Dobj ) computed for the performance points of cases studied Building Waffle slabs building Framed building with wide beams Moment-resisting framed building Damage index (Dobj ) 0.80 0. This feature highligth that restricted-ductility have a abrupt collapse in contrast to the ductile behavior of the moment-resisting framed buildings. In Table 2 are show the values of damage index computed for the performance point displacements.4 0.2 Capacity curve Original stiffness Performance point stiffness Ultimate stiffness 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Roof drift (mm) Fig. 11. Performance point displacement and stiffness degradation of the waffle slabs building age index of the buildings studied.22 120. a special chracteristic of these curves is the smooth aproximation of the ductile building curve to the collapse threshold.Table 1 Performance points displacements of the of the studied buildings Building Waffle slabs building Framed building with wide beams Moment-resisting framed building 0.79 0.6 Performance point displacement (mm) 222.69 14 .

0. Performance point displacement and stiffness degradation of the framed building with wide beams 0.6 Base shear coefficient (V/W) 0. 12.6 Base shear coefficient (V/W) 0.2 Capacity curve Original stiffness Performance point stiffness Ultimate stiffness 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Roof drift (mm) Fig.4 0.4 0. 15 . 13. Also this last typology have an adequate ductility value that exceed the design ductility prescribed in the Spanish seismic code. Performance point displacement and stiffness degradation of the moment-resisting framed building According to the computed values of the objective damage index.2 Capacity curve Original stiffness Performance point stiffness Ultimate stiffness 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Roof drift (mm) Fig. is possible to identify that the damage that occur in the restricted ductility buildings near to the performance point is greather than the damage obtained for the ductile moment-resisting framed building.

it is possible to affirm that the framed building 16 . 14.6 0.25 0.5 Moment-resisting framed building Framed building with wide beams Waffle slabs building Normalized displacement (%) Fig.25 2. Thus.8 0.25 1. damage conventional indexes do not provide results comparable to those calculated by applying the finite element method. Thus.75 2 2. which incorporates the stiffness degradation and the maximum value of the structural ductility enables appropriate values of the global structural damage. regardless of the typology of the analyzed structure. conventional damage indexes values deppend on the structural typology. Specifically.5 2.5 0. in an specific point. it is possible to know the level of global structural damage. or demand spectrum.25 3.1 0. this nonlinear response feature exceeded the expected design values.75 1 1.75 3 3.7 0.9 Objective damage index (DIobj) 0. Damage index curves and damage at performance point displacement of the cases studied 4 Conclusions According to computed nonlinear response of reinforced concrete buildings.4 0. for RC restricted ductility buildings.2 0. Among the three cases studied. The structural analysis previously performed allows objective assessment of structural damage in a simple manner.5 0.3 0. the use of the equation (6) allows to obtain indexes values very close to those that result from more expensive computational procedures.5 1. with the capacity curve of the structure. The moment-resisting framed buildings has an acceptable value of damage at the performance point and their behaviour remain ductile. for example the performance point obtained by means of the intersection of the demand curve.1 0 0 0. The objective damage index.

pp. S. 1026–1036.-S. [10] J. 111. Kunnath. In Press. Oller. [9] P. Fajfar. References [1] J. vol. 1985. vol. H. Barbat and S. “Damage localization and quantification earthquake excited RC-frames. Park and Ang.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic. S. 2007. In Press. [8] NCSE 2002. vol. R. [3] Y. 30. J. Vielma. S. A. H. Performance-based seismic design and evaluation of building structures. “Evaluaci´ on de la respuesta no lineal de edificios de hormig´ on armado proyectados para baja ductilidad. 2002. vol. C. Barbat and S. 17 . pp.” Hormig´ on y Acero. Inoue. Oller. 31. H. 128. [2] S. 2002. vol. 903–916. “A preliminary prediction of seismic damage-based degradation in RC structures. 573–591. 722–739. it is possible to anticipate a high value of the damage index corresponding to the performance point. S. Boca Raton: CRC Press. R. 981–933. Aktan. Vielma. [5] N. [6] P.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Norma de construcci´ on sismorresistente. H. A. “Comportamiento s´ ısmico de edificios de hormig´ on armado con ductilidad limitada. Nielsen and P. Gupta. 2001. pp. S. Hori and N. P.” Hormig´ on y Acero. 2006.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Madrid: BOE N 244. A new procedure for calculating the response nonlinear static-controlled forces is proposed. 16. 27. Nielsen. “A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Perfomance Based Seismic Design. 1th ed. Also. 2007. Kierkegaard. Earthquake engineering for structural design. pp. 2000. vol.. “Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. 2002.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Catbas and E. H. pp. This solves the problem of singularity at the threshold of collapse by implementing an iterative process of calculation which considers obtaining a certain damage index as a convergence criterion. 1998. Kierkegaard and A. Skærbæk. C.” Journal of Structural Engineering. pp.. [7] N. “Condition and damage assessment: issues and some promising index.. “Damaging properties of ground motions and prediction of maximum response of structures based on momentary energy response. [4] P. these buildings has an insufficient structural ductility compared with Spanish seismic code requirements. Cakmak.with wide beams and the waffle slabs building. A.” Earthquake Spectra. 1657–1679.

[13] E. 2007. Oller. 1991. Centro Internacional de M´ etodos Num´ ericos en Ingenier´ ıa. vol. [12] S. “Isotropic damage models and smeared cracks analysis of concrete. vol. 114. “An Anisotropic Elasto Plastic Constitutive Model for Large Strain Analysis of Fiber Reinforced Composite Materials. 4458–4478. 1827– 1849. M.” Journal of Structural Engineering. [16] J. Oliver. Barcelona: Monograf´ ıa N 3. pp. 17. J.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 185. O˜ nate. and E. 245– 277. 196. 2. Oller and J. Cervera. pp. Car. 945–958. “A Large Strain Plasticity for Anisotropic Materials: Composite Material Application. Mata. and R. [15] P. 18 . 1988. S. vol. vol. 1990. pp. Priestley. pp. 1437–1463.” International Journal of Plasticity. S. O˜ nate. Park. B.” Computer aided analysis and design of concrete structures. and E.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. O˜ nate. Oller. Oller. and E. N. Oller. Mander. S. S. vol. Modelizaci´ on num´ erica de materiales friccionales. Car. 2001. M. 2000. [14] E. pp. Lubliner.[11] X. “Static analysis of beam structures under nonlinear geometric and constitutive behaviour. “Observed stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful