You are on page 1of 21

This article was downloaded by: [UNAM]

On: 4 August 2010


Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918399494]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t741771161

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members


Mario E. Rodrigueza; Daniel Padillaa
a
National University of Mexico, Instituto de Ingenieria, Mexico City, Mexico

To cite this Article Rodriguez, Mario E. and Padilla, Daniel(2009) 'A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete Members', Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13: 3, 364 383


To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13632460802597893
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460802597893

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13:364383, 2009


Copyright A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632460802597893

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis


of Reinforced Concrete Members
MARIO E. RODRIGUEZ and DANIEL PADILLA
Instituto de Ingenieria, National University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

This article proposes a damage index for the seismic analysis of Reinforced Concrete members
using the hysteretic energy dissipated by a structural member and a drift ratio related to failure in
the structure. The index was calibrated against observed damage in laboratory tests of 76 RC
column units under various protocols. Values obtained in this calibration had acceptable agreement
with the levels of damage observed in the test specimens. An analysis of the parameters involved in
the definition of the proposed damage index shows the importance of displacement history in the
drift ratio capacity of structures.
Keywords

Seismic Damage; Damage Index; Seismic Analysis; Reinforced Concrete Elements

1. Introduction
A measure of structural damage for a postulated earthquake is relevant for the seismic
analysis of both new and existing building and bridge structures. Several damage indices
have been proposed in the literature to quantify these measures. With respect to the
existing structures, such damage indices provide important information that could be
implemented in the initial assessment and retrofit decision-making process. They can
also be used for performance-based engineering approaches. Such indices have been
reviewed in the literature [Cosenza et al., 1993; Williams and Sexsmith, 1995; Ghobarah
et al., 1999; Teran-Gilmore and Jirsa, 2005], evidently stressing the need for better
damage indices. Several damages indices have been recently proposed. Erduran and
Yakut [2004] proposed a damage measure expressed in terms of interstory drift ratio and
the effect of displacement history is not taken into account. Colombo and Negro [2005]
proposed a damage index defined as the ratio of the initial and the reduced resistance of a
structure, and requires the definition of several parameters related to ductility and energy
dissipation. Kim et al. [2005] proposed a damage measure based on results of finite
element analyses, in which material models were modified to consider fatigue damage
based on results of numerical tests. In the present article, only the damage index of Park
and Ang [1985] is discussed because quantities involved in that index are also involved
in the damage index later proposed.
Park and Ang [1985] proposed the damage index, IPA, that is widely used in the literature.
This index is perhaps one of the earliest and the most popular damage indeces defined as
IPA

R
um  d E H

uu
m r y uu

(1)

Received 2 July 2007; accepted 2 July 2008.


Address correspondence to Mario E. Rodriguez, Instituto de Ingenieria, National University of Mexico,
Mexico City, Mexico; E-mail: mrod@servidor.unam.mx

364

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

365

where parameter um is the maximum displacement of a SDOF system responding to an


earthquake and uu is the ultimate displacement under monotonic loading. Parameters EH
and ry are the hysteretic energy dissipated by the SDOF system and the yield resistance of
this system, respectively. Parameter b considers the effect of repeated loading. It is
assumed that this system has a mass m, and a maximum displacement ductility ratio
equal to mm. The natural circular frequency of this system, o, is equal to
r
k
!
(2)
m

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

where k is the lateral stiffness of the elastic system.


Some disadvantages of using index IPA have been discussed in the literature [Cosenza
et al., 1993; Williams and Sexsmith, 1995; Ghobarah et al., 1999]. Among these disadvantages, it is noted that the index IPA is not normalized as it is not equal to 0 when um is equal to
uy, where the latter parameter is the structural displacement at yielding, and the index IPA is
not equal to 1 when the structure fails under monotonic loading.

2. Proposed Seismic Damage Index


The proposed damage index has evolved from the seismic damage parameter introduced by
Rodriguez [1994]. This parameter considers a level of acceptable seismic performance. In
fact, such a parameter was calibrated using several earthquake records and a specific level of
seismic performance not severe enough to cause a collapse. Results obtained using that
parameter were found consistent with observed seismic damage in 11 earthquakes experienced in the past in different countries [Rodriguez and Aristizabal, 1999].
It is known that the ratio drift to height is relevant in the seismic behavior of structures.
As shown later, the proposed damage index is calibrated against experimental results using
measured drift ratios in lateral load tests of RC column units. It follows that it is highly
useful to express a damage index in terms of drift ratio. This can be done by expressing the
displacement u, involved in the derivation of Eq. (1), in terms of drift ratio, y, that is


u
h

(3)

where h is the column height.


Although, in this article, the authors do not address how to extend their findings to the
case of regular multistory buildings, the following derivation of the proposed damage index
has also been used for assessing seismic damage in existing multistory buildings [Rodriguez
and Padilla, 2006]. It is useful to express the restoring force r(t) of the SDOF system as a
function of the restoring base overturning moment of the system, M(t), that is:
Mt
:
h
For the elastic response, the moment M(t) is given by
rt

(4)

Mt k :

(5)

From Eqs. (4) and (5), and the definition of k we obtain:


k  k h2 :
From Eqs (2) and (6) we obtain an expression for o in terms of ky:
r
k
!
:
mh2

(6)

(7)

366

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla


M

K
E

1 m2

m1
m1 c

m2 1

FIGURE 1 Parameters involved in the definition of the proposed damage index.


The proposed damage index, Id, for the SDOF system previously described is defined as

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

Id

EH
;
E

(8)

where parameter El (shown in Fig. 1) is defined as


E k 2c :

(9)

In the above expression, parameter yc is the maximum drift ratio in an elastic SDOF (with
the same frequency of the analyzed system) such that the energy absorbed in this elastic
system, El, is equal to the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El). In the seismic demandto-capacity problem, parameters EH and El would correspond to the demand and capacity
terms, respectively. Therefore, if the plastic work demand is smaller than the capacity,
then according to Eq. (8), Id < 1.
From Eqs. (8) and (9) we obtain
EH
Id
:
(10)
k 2c
Another interpretation of parameter yc is given in the following. At collapse (EH = El)
that is when Id = 1, from Eq. (10) we obtain
2c

E
:
k

(11)

Since ky is the elastic energy absorbed by the SDOF system when it reaches the rotation
y = 1 (see Fig. 1), 2c can be interpreted as the fraction of this energy that is dissipated
by the nonlinear system at collapse (EH = El) in the form of plastic work. By analyzing
results from a column database, it is shown later that parameter 2c appears to be constant
for RC members with similar structural characteristics, regardless of the displacement
history applied up to collapse. It follows that since 2c is the dimensionless plastic work
capacity in an RC member, see Eq. (11), for RC members with similar structural
characteristics, this capacity can be approximately considered an invariant property.
A second form of the proposed seismic damage index, Id, is proposed using a dimensionless form of parameter EH, which is expressed with parameter g, and is computed from
[Rodriguez, 1994]
q


EH
m

! m h

(12)

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

367

where parameter ym is defined as:


m

um
:
h

(13)

It is a matter of interest that parameter g has also been used by Fajfar [1992] along with a
seismic design procedure which addresses the effect of cumulative seismic damage.
Parameter g has been evaluated for a set of ground motions and was found that it is
dependant on structural and ground motion parameters [Fajfar, 1992].
From Eqs. (7) and (12) we obtain:

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

 2 2m

EH
:
k

(14)

The above expression indicates that  2 2m is equal to the dimensionless plastic work
demand in the SDOF system. Since k 2m is the energy absorbed in the elastic system
(with the same frequency of the analyzed system) when it reaches a maximum drift ratio
equal to ym, Eq. (14) indicates that when a nonlinear system reaches collapse (EH = El) at
a drift ratio ym, it will dissipate an hysteretic energy at collapse that is equal to g 2 times
that elastic energy. Furthermore, at collapse (EH = El), from Eqs. (11) and (14) we obtain:
c  m :

(15)

To illustrate Eq. (15), let us analyze two cases of a SDOF system that reaches collapse (EH =
El) at either ym = ym1 or ym = ym2. For ym = ym1, see Fig. 1, m  c , and therefore   1,
which indicates that in the system the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El, see shaded area
in Fig. 1) is larger than the elastic energy absorbed in the elastic system when it reaches the
maximum drift ratio ym1 (see Fig. 1). For ym = ym2, see Fig. 1, m  c , and therefore   1,
which indicates that the hysteretic energy at collapse (EH = El) is smaller than the energy
absorbed by the elastic system when it reaches the maximum drift ratio ym2 (see Fig. 1).
Finally, a relationship between Id and g can be obtained by combining Eqs. (10) and
(14), after which we obtain:


 m 2
Id
:
(16)
c
For the case EH < El, using Eqs. (11) and (14) leads to  m  c , which in Eq. (16)
implies once again that Id  1 .
It is of interest that according to the definition of Id, see Eq. (16), knowing the plastic
work capacity of a RC member (related to parameter yc) and the expected shape of the
hysteresis loops, we could predict whether or not a RC member would fail for a target
displacement history and deformation ym. This can be done by comparing the plastic
work capacity (k 2c , see Eq. 11) and the plastic work demand (k  2 2m , see Eq. 14) for
the target displacement history.
Usually, Force-Displacement relationships are used for the seismic analysis of SDOF
systems. However, the above derivation, based on Moment-Rotation relationships could
be also used in the Force-Displacement domain. These can be done considering that
parameter EH computed in either of the two mentioned domains are equal. This is due to
the fact that the incremental plastic work using the former type of relationship, DF Du, is

368

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla

equal to the incremental plastic work using the latter relationship, DM Dq. For example, if
we want to express Eq. (11) in the Force-Displacement domain, using the given definitions of parameters y and ky, this equation can be expressed as
E
u2c
(17)
k
where uc is equal to yc h.

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

3. Description of the Column Database


The parameters involved in the definition of the proposed damage index were evaluated
using an experimental database consisting of a set of different RC columns tested in a
laboratory under axial and cyclic lateral loading. This column database is described in the
following. The experimental database used in this study for the calibration of Id consisted
of 76 RC columns tested in the last 30 years in different laboratories of USA, Japan, New
Zealand, and Canada. Figure 2 shows three different types of column test setups found in
the column database. A detailed description of the database can be found in Rodriguez
and Padilla [2006]. Only a brief description of this database is given in the following.
Table 1 lists several characteristics of the columns of the database such as compressive
strength of concrete fc; tensile stress at yielding of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, fy and fyt, respectively; axial load ratio P/Ag fc, where P is the axial load and Ag is
the column section area; ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, rl; ratio of volume of
transverse reinforcement to volume of column core, rt ; and ratio rt /rACI, where rACI
is the amount of transverse reinforcement prescribed by Ch. 21 of the ACI 318-05 [2005].
Table 1 also lists the column height, h (in columns with single or double curvature, see
Fig. 2), the shear span ratio M/VD, where M and V are the maximum flexural moment and
shear acting in a critical column section, respectively, and D is the depth of the column
cross section. In addition, Table 1 shows some test results such as the lateral stiffness of
the test unit, k; maximum drift ratio reached during testing at an ultimate level of damage
later described, ym; and hysteretic energy, EH, computed up to that drift ratio, with a
procedure which is also described later. The initial elastic lateral stiffness in column test
units, k, was obtained from an envelope of the measured lateral load-deformation hysteresis loops assuming a bilinear inelastic rule and a secant initial lateral stiffness at about
3/4 of the maximum measured lateral force.
Table 2 lists a summary of several characteristics of columns of the database such as
section type, axial load ratio, type of observed failure, type of lateral loading, and whether
P
P

P
(F, u )

(F, u )

h
h

(F, u )

a) Single curvature

b) Double curvature

c) Single curvature with center stub

FIGURE 2 Types of test setups in the column database.

369

Designation
(2)

AMCB60C
ANG81U2
ANG81U3
ANG81U4
ANG85U12
ANG85U3
ANG85U4
ARA82102
ARAK19
ARAK9
AT75N10
BETTONO11
DAV75U1
GILL79S1
GILL79S4
IMAI86
J3WS21BS
KANSTC1
KOWALSKIU1
KOWALSKIU2
KUN97A10
KUN97A11

N
(1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2

Reference
(3)

R
C
R
R
C
C
C
R
C
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
C
R
C
C
C
C

Section
type
(4)
46.3
28.5
23.6
25.0
28.6
36.0
30.6
20.6
31.2
30.5
32.4
29.9
33.2
23.1
23.5
27.1
26.5
27.9
34.2
34.2
27.0
27.0

fc
Mpa
(5)
422.0
136.0
156.0
160.0
330.4
84.2
251.0
145.0
151.0
201.0
70.0
177.0
155.0
617.0
642.0
381.0
163.7
68.0
137.9
133.4
70.5
65.8

fy
Mpa
(6)

TABLE 1 Characteristics of test units of the database

414.0
280.0
320.0
280.0
328.0
328.0
316.0
323.0
381.0
368.0
392.0
414.0
312.0
297.0
294.0
336.0
334.0
506.0
414.0
414.0
434.0
434.0

f yt
Mpa
(7)
0.736
0.463
0.380
0.210
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.333
0.091
0.093
0.266
0.104
0.046
0.260
0.600
0.072
0.194
0.088
0.032
0.032
0.091
0.091

P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0275
0.0243
0.0151
0.0151
0.0320
0.0320
0.0320
0.0066
0.0381
0.0508
0.0167
0.0244
0.0249
0.0179
0.0179
0.0266
0.0091
0.0142
0.0207
0.0207
0.0200
0.0200

rl
(9)
0.0089
0.0153
0.0283
0.0222
0.0102
0.0051
0.0051
0.0118
0.0060
0.0070
0.0093
0.0026
0.0043
0.0150
0.0250
0.0036
0.0393
0.0038
0.0093
0.0093
0.0094
0.0094

rt
(10)
0.88
1.25
4.27
2.76
0.97
0.39
0.44
2.06
0.50
0.58
1.25
0.40
0.34
2.14
3.48
0.50
1.18
0.77
0.94
0.94
1.26
1.26

rt/rACI
(11)

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

646
1600
1600
1600
600
1000
800
750
900
600
1676
914
2750
1200
1200
1650
500
1500
2438
2438
1372
1372

h
mm
(12)
1.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.1
5.5
1.5
5.5
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.0
2.5
5.3
5.3
4.6
4.6

M/VD
(13)
444.2
21.6
22.9
16.3
53.5
8.7
29.5
80.6
79.5
174.8
5.6
77.0
10.3
120.5
205.8
224.1
104.3
15.7
3.6
5.3
5.4
5.7

K
kN/mm
(14)

EH
(m/sec)2
(16)

(Continued)

0.0046
3.60
0.0234 26.40
0.0318 49.38
0.0365 61.10
0.0301 28.94
0.0403 28.15
0.0225 15.78
0.0168
9.52
0.0137
4.38
0.0099
2.51
0.0229 18.52
0.0070
1.83
0.0221 57.25
0.0282 96.54
0.0129 56.20
0.0105
8.15
0.0160
8.09
0.0230 25.05
0.0615 226.73
0.1080 336.91
0.0661 64.85
0.0548 56.69

ym
(rad)
(15)

370

Designation
(2)

KUN97A12
KUN97A7
KUN97A8
KUN97A9
LEH1015
LEH407
LEH415
LEH430
LEH815
MUG89AH1
MUG89AH2
MUG89BH1
MUG89BL2
NAG1063
NAG1932
OHNO84L1
OHNO84L3
ONO025C
ONO060C
POT79N3
S1RP
SAATU6
SAK90B1

N
(1)

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1

Reference
(3)

TABLE 1 (Continued)

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R

Section
type
(4)
27.0
32.8
32.8
32.5
34.0
30.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
85.7
85.7
115.8
115.8
21.6
21.0
24.8
24.8
25.8
25.8
26.6
29.5
37.3
99.5

fc
Mpa
(5)
70.3
75.4
63.8
70.5
93.0
171.9
274.0
445.3
144.0
214.3
210.0
223.0
256.0
74.0
93.0
113.0
90.0
110.0
123.0
647.0
188.0
314.0
366.0

fy
Mpa
(6)
434.0
434.0
434.0
434.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
497.0
792.3
792.3
729.3
328.4
344.0
344.0
325.0
325.0
426.0
426.0
300.0
350.0
425.0
774.0

f yt
Mpa
(7)
0.091
0.075
0.075
0.076
0.069
0.079
0.079
0.074
0.069
0.400
0.629
0.254
0.423
0.170
0.350
0.040
0.040
0.257
0.616
0.449
0.232
0.131
0.350

P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0150
0.0075
0.0150
0.0150
0.0150
0.0381
0.0381
0.0381
0.0381
0.0133
0.0133
0.0142
0.0142
0.0236
0.0236
0.0243
0.0205
0.0327
0.0255

rl
(9)
0.0094
0.0094
0.0094
0.0094
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0161
0.0161
0.0161
0.0161
0.0081
0.0139
0.0032
0.0032
0.0091
0.0091
0.0112
0.0013
0.0195
0.0050

rt
(10)
1.26
1.04
1.04
1.05
0.82
0.93
0.93
0.88
0.82
1.65
1.65
1.13
0.51
1.43
2.53
0.47
0.47
1.42
1.42
1.05
0.14
2.47
0.43

rt/rACI
(11)

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

1372
1372
1372
1372
6096
2438
2438
2438
4877
500
500
500
500
600
600
1600
1600
600
600
1200
1600
1000
1000

h
mm
(12)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
10.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
4.6
2.9
2.0

M/VD
(13)
6.1
5.5
4.7
5.4
0.9
12.2
12.3
15.0
1.9
81.5
102.4
82.6
102.4
87.1
109.4
11.1
13.6
101.9
123.0
202.8
38.4
28.3
178.5

K
kN/mm
(14)
0.0393
0.0591
0.0569
0.066
0.0990
0.0521
0.0730
0.073
0.0914
0.0710
0.0451
0.0644
0.0203
0.0077
0.0078
0.0509
0.0456
0.0013
0.0050
0.0120
0.0185
0.0890
0.0103

ym
(rad)
(15)

57.77
47.80
49.22
62.50
394.27
168.57
376.21
596.15
455.26
52.71
45.79
49.46
5.83
1.05
1.45
31.81
110.88
3.91
1.87
55.86
17.11
381.07
15.06

EH
(m/sec)2
(16)

371

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

SOES86U1
SOES86U2
SOES86U3
SOES86U4
SS1RP
TANA90U1
TANA90U2
TANA90U3
TANA90U4
TANA90U5
TANA90U6
TANA90U7
TANA90U8
TANA90U9
TP001
TP002
TP003
TP004
TP005
TP006
WAT89U10
WAT89U5
WAT89U6
WAT89U7
WAT89U8
WAT89U9
WONG90U1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2

R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
C

46.5
44.0
44.0
40.0
29.5
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
32.0
32.0
32.1
32.1
26.9
35.9
35.7
34.3
33.2
36.8
35.9
40.0
41.0
40.0
42.0
39.0
40.0
38.0

181.0
228.0
222.0
228.0
603.0
149.8
141.3
153.1
136.1
378.0
384.7
511.0
513.5
371.4
149.1
145.2
153.2
153.8
150.8
160.1
174.6
256.8
259.0
288.0
265.0
289.5
425.0

364.0
360.0
354.0
255.0
350.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
305.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
368.0
372.0
372.0
388.0
308.0
372.0
308.0
300.0

0.100
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.112
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.300
0.300
0.100
0.027
0.027
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.027
0.414
0.500
0.500
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.149

0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0136
0.0157
0.0157
0.0157
0.0157
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0188
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0158
0.0180
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0320

0.0086
0.0122
0.0080
0.0057
0.0013
0.0255
0.0255
0.0255
0.0255
0.0170
0.0170
0.0208
0.0208
0.0217
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0063
0.0060
0.0032
0.0126
0.0070
0.0233
0.0145

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

0.75
1.11
0.72
0.40
0.17
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
1.92
1.92
2.34
2.34
2.73
0.65
0.65
0.68
0.70
0.63
0.65
0.49
0.60
0.34
1.03
0.74
1.99
0.95

1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1650
1650
1600
1784
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1245
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
800

4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0

22.3
36.3
39.4
38.9
137.7
14.0
19.8
24.2
22.7
30.7
34.4
61.3
72.3
35.2
18.7
13.3
16.9
18.0
16.7
15.0
32.6
48.5
51.4
64.6
56.1
49.8
77.3

141.41
44.00
40.29
42.55
233.92
53.35
52.48
47.10
70.85
146.67
184.16
257.37
150.90
246.66
74.6
45.26
47.40
14.40
66.20
16.30
44.13
56.03
31.34
18.72
23.30
78.51
199.72
(Continued)

0.0612
0.0314
0.0282
0.0220
0.0267
0.0401
0.0404
0.0351
0.0487
0.0450
0.0544
0.0503
0.0354
0.0473
0.0340
0.0439
0.0576
0.0824
0.0724
0.0866
0.0201
0.0200
0.0157
0.0084
0.0111
0.0218
0.0513

372

ZAHN86U7
ZHO1248
ZHO21408
ZHO22309

Designation
(2)

1
1
1
1

Reference
(3)
R
R
R
R

Section
type
(4)

fy
Mpa
(6)

f yt
Mpa
(7)

28.3 201.5 466.0


19.8 100.5 559.0
21.1 52.4 559.0
21.1 56.8 559.0

fc
Mpa
(5)
0.223
0.801
0.800
0.900

P/Ag
fc
(8)
0.0151
0.0245
0.0245
0.0245

rl
(9)

Reference:
1) Reference: Taylor et al. NISTIR 5285 (1993).
2) Reference: Taylor et al. NISTIR 5984(1997).
3) Reference: Kawashima Earthquake Eng. Lab.(http://www.ce.washington.edu/peera1/).

73
74
75
76

N
(1)

TABLE 1 (Continued)

0.0156
0.0175
0.0150
0.0175

rt
(10)
2.85
5.49
4.42
5.15

rt/rACI
(11)

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

1600
320
640
640

h
mm
(12)

4.0
1.0
2.0
2.0

M/VD
(13)

19.6
101.5
47.2
41.5

K
kN/mm
(14)

0.0516
0.0192
0.0104
0.0193

ym
(rad)
(15)

83.03
2.63
1.40
2.12

EH
(m/sec)2
(16)

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

373

TABLE 2 Summary of characteristics of columns of the database


Quantity

Characteristic

Range

76
24
52
23

fc (Mpa)
fy (MPa)
fyt (MPa)
P/Ag fc

19.8115.8
240511
255792
00.9

53

rt

0.0010.039

36
40
29
26
21
2
63

rt / rACI
rt fyt / fc
ym (%)
M/VD

0.17.49
0.020.5
0.510.8
1.010

Selected test specimens


Circular test specimens
Square test specimens
Test specimens with detailed description
of damage
Test specimens w/o detailed description
of damage
Test specimens with rt fyt / fc > 0.1
Test specimens with rt fyt / fc < 0.1
Test specimens with P/Ag fc < 0.1
Test specimens with 0.1< P/Ag fc < 0.3
Test specimens with P/Ag fc > 0.3
Test specimens with monotonic loading
Test specimens with reversed cyclic lateral
loading
Test specimens with earthquake type loading

11

20
10
0
10
20
0

(mm)

(mm)
0

120
80
40
0
40

150
75
0

(mm)

120
80
40
0
40

(mm)

40
20
0
20
40

12
6
0
6
12

150
(mm)

120
60
0
-60
-120

(mm)

(mm)

120
80
40
0
40

(mm)

40
80

90
45
0
45
90

(mm)

80
40

(mm)

(mm)

the columns had low or high confinement. In addition, Table 2 lists the range of values
for typical design parameters in these columns, such as compressive strength of concrete
fc, tensile stress at yielding of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, fy and fyt,
respectively; axial load ratio P/Ag fc; ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to
volume of column core rt; confinement index (rt fyt/fc); maximum drift ratio ym; and
shear span ratio M/VD. The range of values for this parameter and the observation of
damage at end of testing for the column units of the database suggest that their failure
mode were either flexure or flexure-shear dominated.
Figure 3 shows typical examples of lateral displacement histories applied in the 76
RC columns of the database. As seen here, these cyclic displacement histories cover a
wide range of displacement histories. Most column units of the database were tested

(mm)

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

Characteristic

75
150
0

75
0
-75
-150

20
10
0
10
20
0

FIGURE 3 Lateral displacement histories in the test specimens of the database.

374

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla

statically and in other cases dynamically using earthquake excitations such as column
units No 2126 (see Table 1).

4. Definition of Parameters Involved in Proposed Damage Index

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

4.1. Definition of Parameter qm


A significant factor pertaining to the evaluation of the database needs mentioning here. The
definition of failure considered in this study corresponded to the response of a structural
element at an ultimate drift ratio equal to ym, which was defined when the lateral strength of
the test unit had a decay of 20%. Beyond this level of strength decay, total repair is
generally needed [Park and Ang, 1985]. This definition of ym is illustrated in Fig. 4. It is a
matter of great interest that in most of the database selected in this study, testing was
terminated at levels of strength decay of about 20%. In fact, only 10 test specimens of the
database reached levels of strength decay of 50% or more, which would more likely
represent a collapse or an imminent collapse. With the given definition of ym, a set of
values for this parameter was generated using the experimental database listed on Table 1.
Quite interestingly, different authors have proposed different definitions for classification of damage. For example, values found using the well known Park and Ang index
fell in a wide range of damage classification. According to this index a threshold value
between repairable and nonrepairable damage is 0.4, leading to a wide range of classification of severe damage before collapse from 0.41.0 [Park et al., 1985]. In fact, it is
also suggested that the value of 1.0 representing collapse in the Park and Ang index
should change to a value of 0.8 to represent collapse [Williams and Sexsmith, 1995].
4.2. Definition of Parameter EH
The hysteretic energy, EH, for the 76 test specimens of the database was computed by
numerical integration of the lateral force-drift hysteretic response cycles recorded in these
test specimens [Rodriguez and Padilla, 2006]. For each test specimen, parameter EH was
computed up to the cycle with the drift ratio equal to ym, with the additional consideration
that if a second cycle at that drift ratio dropped its strength to more than 20%, then that
cycle was not computed in the evaluation of EH.
4.3. Definition of Parameter qc
Parameter yc for the database was computed using Eq. (11), making El = EH and computing
EH as described in Sec. 4.2, and ky was computed using Eq. (6) with the definition of k given
in Sec. 3.
F
Fmax
0.8Fmax

FIGURE 4 Definition of maximum drift ratio ym.

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

375

5. Evaluation of Parameters qc, qm, and g Using the Experimental Database


From the database, seven groups of test specimens were used for a detailed evaluation of
parameter yc. As shown in Table 3, each of these groups had similar structural properties,
defined with the axial load ratio P/Ag fc, ratio rt/rACI, and shear span ratio M/VD.
However, specimens in each group were subjected to different displacement histories.
In some cases, within each group, parameters k and h, which define ky (see Eq. 6), had
different values (see Table 1). For these seven groups of test specimens, parameter g was
evaluated at the maximum drift ratio ym reached using Eq. (12) and results are shown in

TABLE 3 Analysis of the effect of displacement history on drift ratio capacity of similar
RC column

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

Group

Test Unit

ym

yc

(a)

LEH1015
LEH815
KOWAU1
KOWAU2

1.08
1.09
1.67
0.96

0.099
0.091
0.062
0.108

0.107
0.100
0.103
0.104

P/Agf c < 0.1


82% <t /rACI < 94%
5.3 < M/VD < 10

(b)

KUN7
KUN8
KUN9
KUN10
KUN11
KUN12

1.14
1.31
1.18
1.21
1.32
1.80

0.059
0.057
0.066
0.066
0.055
0.039

0.067
0.075
0.078
0.079
0.073
0.07

P/Agf c < 0.1


100% < rt /rACI < 126%
M/VD = 4.5

(c)

KANSTC1
OHNO84L3
SOES86U1
TP001
TP002
TP005

1.15
1.24
0.81
1.5
1.07
0.71

0.0461
0.0456
0.0612
0.034
0.044
0.0724

0.0532
0.0564
0.0498
0.051
0.047
0.051

P/Agf c < 0.1


46% < rt /rACI < 76%
3.1 < M/VD < 5

(d)

ANG81U4
TANA90U1
TANA90U4
TANA90U2
ZAHN86U7

1.05
0.96
0.72
0.80
0.79

0.0365
0.0401
0.0487
0.0404
0.0516

0.0383
0.0386
0.0349
0.0322
0.0407

0.2 < P/Agf c < 0.23


276% < rt /rACI < 369%
M/VD = 4

(e)

ZHO22309
ARA82102
WAT89U9
ANG81U3
ZHO1248

0.58
0.85
1.14
0.91
0.87

0.0383
0.0340
0.0218
0.0318
0.0366

0.0224
0.0290
0.0248
0.0290
0.0318

P/Agf c > 0.33


199% < rt /rACI < 549%
3 < M/VD < 4

(f)

SOES86U2
SOES86U3
SOES86U4

0.69
0.71
0.94

0.0314
0.0282
0.022

0.0218
0.0200
0.0207

P/Agf c = 0.3
40%<rt /rACI < 111%
M/VD = 4

(g)

WAT89U6
WAT89U7
WAT89U8

0.98
1.27
1.15

0.0157
0.0084
0.0111

0.0154
0.0106
0.0127

P/Agf c > 0.5


34% < rt /rACI < 103%
M/VD = 4

376

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla


0.12
5.3

0.10

4 .5

0.08

4 . 5 4 .5
(b)
4 .5
4 .5

4 .5

0.06

3 .1

0.04

4
4

(f)

0.02
4

0.00
0.00

2 4

4 43

5
3 .1
4

4
4

3 .1

10 5.3

(a)

c= m

(c) Note: Numbers indicate


values of parameter M/VD

(d)

(e)

(g)

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

FIGURE 5 Evaluation of yc as a function of ym for groups of test specimens with similar


structural characteristics.
Table 3. Calculated values of parameter yc using Eq. (11) are also shown in Table 3 and
plotted in Fig. 5. As seen there, for each group of test specimens, parameter yc is nearly
constant, which leads to two important observations. The first observation is that specimens with similar structural properties (as listed above) subjected to different loading
protocols have different drift capacities (measured as ym) and an approximately constant
equivalent elastic drift yc. The second observation is that according to the definition of
parameter yc, in columns with similar structural properties subjected to different loading
protocols, the plastic work capacity appears to be constant (see Fig. 5), and this capacity
can be evaluated as k 2c , see Eq. (11).
The line at 45o with the x axis in Fig. 5 indicates the case yc = ym . Therefore, the zone
above the line corresponds to the case yc > ym, and the zone below the line corresponds to
the case yc < ym. Accordingly, the former and later cases correspond to the cases g > 1 and
g < 1, respectively, as seen in Eq. (15). These results also give an insight into the effect of
displacement history on the ultimate deformation capacity of an RC element, which is
accounted for by parameter g. For example, it can be said that the condition g = 1.0 would
be related to a medium effect of displacement history, and g > 1.0 and g < 1.0 would be
related to a high and low effect of displacement history, respectively.
Figure 6 shows a plot of calculated values of parameter 2c obtained using Eq. (11) for
the 76 test specimens of the database. These values are plotted on the y axis as a function
of ym, which is plotted on the x axis. Results shown in Fig. 6, and Eqs. (11) and (15),
indicate that the parabolic curve y = x2 defines the condition yc = ym or g = 1.0. With the
same reasoning, it can be shown that results above the parabolic curve would correspond
to the condition yc > ym and g > 1.0. Results below the parabolic curve would correspond
to the condition yc < ym and g < 1.0.
The above discussion gives ground to explain what has been commonly observed in
cyclic lateral load tests of similar specimens. A hysteretic energy at the ultimate damage
level dissipated with a large number of lateral load cycles would lead to less deformation
capacity than in the case when a hysteretic energy is dissipated in a similar specimen with
a smaller number of cycles at the same damage level. To elaborate on this finding, results
obtained in six identical RC column units, tested under various protocols [Takemura and
Kawashima, 1997] are discussed in the following.

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

377

0.015

0.012
2

c = m

0.009
2

c > m
( >1)

0.006

c < m
( <1)

0.003

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

FIGURE 6 Relationships between a dimensionless hysteretic energy at failure and ym.


Figure 7 shows lateral force-drift ratio hysteresis loops obtained in the mentioned six
columns whose characteristics are also shown in Table 1. The insets in Fig. 7 show the
measured values of ultimate drift ratios, ym, the calculated values of yc using Eq. (11),
and the calculated values of parameter g at collapse (EH = El) obtained using Eq. (15).
The arrows in Fig. 7 correspond to the last cycle considered in the computation of EH for
the cyclic case. As can be seen in Fig. 7, different values of parameter ym were obtained
in these identical six test specimens. However, computed values for the equivalent elastic
drift yc appears to be constant for these six specimens, that is, about the same plastic work
capacity. It is important to note that that the test unit TP006 reached an ultimate drift
capacity of about three times that reached by test unit TP001.
Since they were not tested under a cyclic loading, test units TP004 and TP006 need
further explanation on how parameter yc was calculated (see Fig. 7). To be consistent
with the definition of failure given here for the cyclic case, failure in a monotonic type of
loading would correspond to a lateral strength decay of 20% at the first loading . As seen
in Fig. 7, before unloading, column units TP004 and TP006 did not undergo any strength
decay, therefore according to the given definition of failure, they did not fail, and their
results need to be evaluated properly. In fact, the testing of these column units is a
combination of both monotonic and cyclic cases.
To evaluate parameter yc for column units TP004 and TP006, it is assumed that a
cyclic loading would have at least one full incursion in the four quadrants of a plot lateral
force-displacement up to a strength decay of at least 20% at the maximum drift reached in
testing. For column unit TP004 these assumptions would lead to consider its plastic work
at the end of testing, which was equal to 51.9 kN-m. The plastic work computed for this
unit at the first quadrant was 14.4 kN-m (see Table 1), that is, the total plastic work of this
unit was about 3.6 times the plastic work of the monotonic response. Accordingly, for
the evaluation of parameter yc in column units TP004 and TP006, parameter EH was
computed considering the plastic work at the end of testing of column unit TP004. Based
on these results, it is suggested that a simplified procedure for the evaluation of EH is used
when computing Id for the monotonic case, in which EH is assumed equal to 4 times the
plastic work computed at the first quadrant. The monotonic case is further analyzed later.

378

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla

F (kN)

200

F (kN)

150

150

100

100

50

50

0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

100

150

150

200

(a) Test Unit TP001 (m = 0.034, c = 0.051, = 1.5)

(b) Test Unit TP002 ( m = 0.044, c = 0.047, = 1.07)

200

200

F (kN)

150

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

0.1

100

150

100

100

50

50

0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

50

200

F (kN)

200

0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

50

100

100

150

150

200

200

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

(c) Test Unit TP003 (m = 0.058, c = 0.043, = 0.74) (d) Test Unit TP004 (m = 0.082, c = 0.043, = 0.52)
F (kN)

200

F (kN)

200

150

150

100

100

50

50

0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

0
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
50

100

100

150

150

200

200

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

(e) Test Unit TP005 (m = 0.072, c = 0.051, = 0.71) (f) Test Unit TP006 (m = 0.087, c = 0.047, = 0.54)

FIGURE 7 Lateral force-drift ratio hysteresis cycles in identical columns tested by


Takemura and Kawashima [1997].

Figure 8 plots values of parameter yc obtained as the ratio El / ky (see Eq. 11) for the
six test specimens as a function of observed parameter ym. Results shown in Fig. 8
indicate that the six test specimens had about the same value of equivalent elastic drift yc.
Considering Eq. (11) and that parameters k and h had similar values in this group of
specimens, these results indicate that these test units dissipated about the same hysteretic
energy at different levels of parameter ym.
According to Eq (10) for an evaluation of parameter Id, it is necessary to determine
the value of parameter yc. Results in Fig. 5 show a wide range of expected yc values.
These values depend on three main structural properties: the axial load ratio P/Ag fc, the

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

379

0.06
TP002

TP005

TP006

TP001

0.04

TP003

TP004

0.02

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

FIGURE 8 Relationship between an equivalent elastic drift and ym for identical columns
tested by Takemura and Kawashima [1997].
confining reinforcement and the shear-span ratio M/VD. An accurate procedure for
evaluating parameter yc as a function of the mentioned structural properties is beyond
the scope of this paper. However, the authors suggest a simple procedure to obtain an
approximation of the expected value of parameter yc for a particular case. The
procedure is based on assuming that the case under study belongs to one of the
seven groups shown in Fig. 5, after which its corresponding value of yc can be
obtained. Given the complexity of the seismic damage analysis problem addressed in
this study, in which we need to consider not only energy dissipation capacity but also
energy demand, the use of this simple procedure for evaluating yc is useful for such
damage analysis.
The above findings suggest that both static and dynamic experimental responses are
not directly comparable, since displacement history is relevant for defining the capacity
for the drift ratio of RC members. As discussed before, in such a comparison the plastic
work demands (k  2 2m , see Eq. 14) need to be computed, and compared to the plastic
work capacity (k 2c , see Eq. 11).

6. Damage Analysis of RC Members that Fail Under Monotonic Loading


Figure 9 shows an idealized force-deformation relationship for a SDOF system that fails
under monotonic loading considering an elasto-plastic curve and an incursion in the
positive quadrant with a maximum drift ratio equal to ym. The drift ratio at yielding of
this system is yy and its elastic stiffness is equal to ky. Figure 9 also shows the parameter
yc and the energy absorbed in the elastic SDOF system at collapse (with the same
frequency of the analyzed system and EH = El) when reaches the deformation yc.
Parameter EH for the SDOF system in the monotonic case is computed with the previous
recommendation that EH is equal to four times the energy dissipated by a monotonic
loading, which leads to:
EH 4 k y m  y :

(18)

Considering the collapse level (EH = El), parameter yc is calculated using Eqs. (11) and
(18), which leads to:

380

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla


M

k
E

r yh

FIGURE 9 Parameters involved in the evaluation of the proposed damage index for a
RC member that fails under monotonic loading.

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

2c 4 y m  y :

(19)

From Eq. (19), the following relationship between yc and ym is obtained:


2c

4 2m
1
1  :
m
m

(20)

Equation (20) indicates that by using the parameters ym and mm obtained in testing an RC
member that fails under monotonic loading, we can get an approximation of the energy
dissipation capacity of a similar member when it fails under cyclic loading. Some
examples are given in the following which support this hypothesis.
Let us analyze the cases of test units TP004 and TP006, which failed under monotonic
loading and were discussed in Sec. 5 of this article along with their companion test units
with similar structural characteristics but tested using different displacement histories.
Measured values of parameters ym and mm at collapse found after monotonic testing of
column units TP004 and TP006 are shown in Table 4. Results of the computation of yc with
Eq. (20) using these values are also shown in this table. As seen in Table 4, these results are
close to the previously computed values of parameter yc shown in insets of Fig. 7.
Furthermore, these computed values of parameter yc for the monotonic cases using Eq.
(20) are also close to those previously computed for the column units tested under cyclic
loading, namely, TP001, TP002, TP003, and TP005; see insets in Fig. 7.

7. Calibration of Proposed Damage Index Against Observed Evolution of


Damage in Test Specimens of the Database
A set of 21 test specimens was selected from the database chosen for this study for a
calibration of the proposed index and observed evolution of damage during testing
TABLE 4 Evalution of parameter yc in monotonic tests
Column Unit
TP004
TP006

ym

mm

yc (Eq 20)

yc (Fig 7)

0.082
0.087

12
10

0.046
0.052

0.043
0.047

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

381

[Rodriguez and Padilla, 2006]. This number of test specimens was arrived at based on the
detailed description of observed evolution of damage presently available. The following
classification of damage levels was considered in this calibration:

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

1.
2.
3.
4.

Localized minor cracking or first yielding of tensile reinforcement;


Light cracking throughout or first yielding of compressive reinforcement;
Severe localized cracking or onset of localized spalling;
Buckling of longitudinal reinforcement.

Figure 10 shows a plot of results found for Id using Eq. (10), where EH was computed at
the drift ratio yi, corresponding to the levels of damage AD observed during the testing
of the 21 test units. These levels of damage are identified with the symbols shown in an
inset of Fig. 10. The results shown in Fig. 10 indicate some trends on the relationships
between observed damage and parameters Id and yi/ym. These trends are summarized in
an inset of Fig. 10, which indicates that minor damage would correspond to Id < 0.1;
moderate damage would correspond to 0.1 < Id < 0.6; and severe damage would
correspond to Id > 0.6. The inset of Fig. 10 also shows the values of yi/ym that would
correspond to each of these three levels of damage.
A calibration of the Park and Ang index, IPA, against the observed evolution of
damage in the abovementioned set of 21 test units is shown in Fig. 11. As seen there, the
trend of results using the Park and Ang index is comparable to that shown in Fig. 10 for
the proposed damage index. Results in Fig.11 indicate that minor damage would correspond to IPA < 0.2; moderate damage would correspond to 0.2 < IPA < 0.6; and severe
damage would correspond to IPA > 0.6.
It must be pointed out that the proposed damage index does not have the previously
mentioned disadvantages of using the Park and Ang damage index, since when um is
equal to uy the index Id is equal to zero, and Id is equal to 1 when the structure fails under
monotonic loading

1.0

(A)
(B)
(C)

0.8

(D)
Id = 0.1
Id = 0.6

Id

0.6

Id
0.4

Damage
Classification

i / m

0 to 0.1

A,B

0 to 0.3

0.1 to 0.6

0.3 to 0.7

0.6 to 1.0

0.7 to 1.0

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

i/m

FIGURE 10 Calibration of proposed damage index and observed damage in 21 test


specimens of the database.

382

M. E. Rodriguez and D. Padilla


1.0

0.8

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
IPA = 0.2
IPA = 0.6

0.6
IPA

0.4

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

i/m

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIGURE 11 Calibration of Park and Ang damage index, IPA, and observed damage in 21
test specimens of the database.

8. Conclusions
This article proposes a new damage measure for the seismic damage analysis of structural
RC members. The following conclusions were obtained in this study.
1. An evaluation of results observed in laboratory tests of a set of RC column units
under different loading protocols showed the importance of displacement history
for defining the capacity for the drift ratio of RC members in a seismic event. It
follows that there is no unique capacity for the drift ratio of an RC member (or
similar ones).
2. The plastic work capacity of an RC member is nearly constant for RC members
with similar structural properties. Since at failure this work is equal to the plastic
work demand (earthquake or laboratory test demands), this leads to a definition of
a rational seismic damage measure.
3. The proposed damage measure was calibrated against experimental results
from a column database selected for this study at failure and at levels of
damage preceding failure. Results of this calibration indicate a reasonable
agreement between predicted and observed damage in the analyzed column
database.
4. There is a relationship between displacement history and the capacity for the
drift ratio of RC members, which is captured by the parameter g (or yc/ym).
This relationship can be used for defining lateral loading protocols in laboratory
tests.
5. The proposed damage index has the convenient feature that is equal to zero when
the maximum displacement is equal to the displacement at yielding, and it is equal
to 1 when the RC member fails under monotonic loading.

A Damage Index for the Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

383

Acknowledgments
Professor S. Pujol from Purdue University, and four reviewers made useful suggestions
that helped to improve the manuscript. Their reviews and time are greatly appreciated.

Downloaded By: [UNAM] At: 23:11 4 August 2010

References
ACI Committee 318. [2005] Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-05),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Colombo, A. and Negro, P. [2005] A damage index of generalised applicability, Engineering
Structures 27, 11641174.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi G., and Ramasco R. [1993] The use of damage functionals in earthquake
engineering: A comparison between different methods, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 22, 855868.
Erduran, E. and Yakut, A. [2004] Drift based damage functions for reinforced concrete columns,
Computers and Structures 82, 121130.
Fajfar, P. [1992] Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 21, 837848.
Ghobarah, A., Abou-Elfath, and Biddah A. [1999] Response-based damage assessment of
structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 79104.
Kim, T., Lee, K., and Chung, Y. [2005] Seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete bridge
columns, Engineering Structures 27, 576592.
Park, Y. J. and Ang, A. H. S. [1985] Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 111(4), 722739.
Rodriguez, M. [1994] A measure of the capacity of earthquake ground motions to damage
structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23, 627643.
Rodriguez, M. E. and Aristizabal J.C. [1999] Evaluation of a seismic damage parameter,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 28, 463477.
Rodriguez, M. E. and Padilla, D. [2006] A seismic damage index for reinforced concrete
buildings (in Spanish), Research Report SID/652, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mexico
City, p. 184. In electronic form in PDF file in http://www.iingen.unam.mx/C3/Publicaciones/
default.aspx
Taylor, A. W. and Stone, W. [1993] A summary of cyclic lateral load tests on spiral reinforced
concrete columns, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Gaithersburg, MD, NISTIR 5285.
Taylor, A. W., Kuo, C., Wellenius, K., and Chung, D. [1997] A summary of cyclic lateral load
tests on rectangular reinforced concrete columns, Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
Gaithersburg, MD, NISTIR 5984.
Takemura, H. and Kawashima, K. [1997] Effect of loading hysteresis on ductility capacity of
reinforced concrete bridge piers, Journal of Structural Engineering 97(43A), 849858.
Teran-Gilmore, A. and Jirsa, J. [2005] A damage model for practical seismic design that accounts
for low-cycle fatigue, Earthquake Spectra, 21(3), 803832.
Williams, M. S. and Sexsmith, R. G. [1995] Seismic damage indices for concrete structures:
A state-of-the-art-review, Earthquake Spectra 11(2), 319345.