See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278104441

Seismic Assessment of RC Building According to ATC 40, FEMA 356 and FEMA
440

Article  in  ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s13369-014-1395-x

CITATIONS READS

25 18,420

3 authors, including:

Riza Suwondo Sajjad kathem Ashour

The University of Manchester University of Al-Qadisiyah
16 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Behaviour of earthquake damaged steel structure in fire View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Riza Suwondo on 04 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699
DOI 10.1007/s13369-014-1395-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

Seismic Assessment of RC Building According to ATC 40, FEMA

356 and FEMA 440
R. A. Hakim · M. S. Alama · S. A. Ashour

Received: 27 January 2014 / Accepted: 30 June 2014 / Published online: 4 October 2014
© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2014

Abstract Saudi Building Code (SBC 301) including seis-

mic design regulation is recently developed and released for
immediate implementation. The design procedures accord-
ing to SBC-301 are generally based on elastic force-based
analysis method. Seismic engineers are recently turning to
nonlinear static analysis or pushover analysis which predicts
directly the amount and location of plastic yielding within a
structure. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the per-
formance of the buildings, which were design according to
SBC, using pushover analysis. Four typical RC frame struc-
tures are evaluated. Pushover analysis is performed to pro-
duce the ultimate building capacity. Performance levels of the
buildings are specified according ATC-40, FEMA-356, and
FEMA-440. The results show that the SBC design buildings
generally satisfy to these methods acceptance criteria.
1 Introduction
Keywords Building · Seismic assessment · Pushover ·
Nonlinear analysis · Performance-based evaluation Parts of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have low to moderate seis-
mic region. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS)
data, seismic activities were detected recently in Tabuk and
Gizan. The seismic effect can devastate building and cause
soil liquefaction, landslides, tsunami, ruptures and struc-
tural/nonstructural damages.
Saudi Building Code (SBC 301) [1] including seismic
design regulation is recently developed and released for
immediate implementation. This code provides minimum
load requirements for the design of buildings and other struc-
tures. Load and appropriate load combination are set forth for
the strength design and allowable design.
The design procedures according to SBC are generally
based on linear force-based analysis method rather than
displacement-based method. The linear analysis method,
R. A. Hakim (B) · M. S. Alama · S. A. Ashour
which has been used by the most of structural engineer, is
Department of Civil Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia still the most preferable method because it is simple in com-
e-mail: ainul7@yahoo.com putational point of view. The method uses the response reduc-

123
7692 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699

Fig. 1 Illustration of
performance-based design

tion parameter for whole structure to account the nonlinear
response of structures [2,3].
The recent building standards (e.g., ATC, FEMA) for seis-
mic design and evaluation have applied performance-based
design criteria that estimate nonlinear response of the build-
ing. Performance-based design is started by making struc-
tural model and then simulates its performance against the
expected seismic excitation. Each simulation provides the
level of damage so that a structural engineer can manage the
risk of damage in terms of recovery cost.
Figure 1 illustrates performance level of building des-
cribed along with a force–displacement curve which shows
the behavior of global structure against lateral load. The curve
is obtained from nonlinear static analysis, known as pushover
analysis.
It is important in performance-based design to determine
performance level of building, which is used by engineer to
design the building. Performance levels according to ATC-
40 [4] are shown in Table 1.
2 Pushover Analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is theoretically correct approach
[5–10]. However, it is very complex and not practical for
every design. It needs time history of ground motion data
and detailed hysteretic behavior of structural member which
is unpredictable. The analysis is proper for research and for
important structure design. Nowadays, the structural engi-
neering profession is using pushover analysis, a new tech-
nique to solve the problem expressed above.
The pushover analysis is based on assumption that the
response of the structure can be related to the response of an
equivalent single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. This
means that the response is controlled by a single mode and
that the shape of this mode remains constant throughout
the time history response. Obviously, both assumptions are
incorrect, but research studies conducted [6,7] have indicated
that these assumptions lead to good predictions of the maxi-
mum seismic response of multi degree-of-freedom (MDOF)

Table 1 Performance level of

buildings Level Description

Operational Very little damage, temporary drift, structure retains original strength and
stiffness, all systems are normal
Immediate occupancy Little damage, temporary drift, structure retains original strength and
stiffness, elevator can be restarted, fire protection still works
Life safety Fair damage, some permanent drift, some residual strength and stiffness left,
damage to partition, building may be beyond economical repair
Collapse prevention Severe damage, large displacement, little residual stiffness and strength but
loading bearing column and wall function, building is close to collapse

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699 7693

 2
structures, provided their response is dominated by a single m i ∅i
mode. α =     (2)
N N
i=1 m i ∅i1
2
Basically, pushover analysis is a static nonlinear analysis i=1 m i

carried out to develop capacity curve or pushover curve of

where m i mass assigned to level i, φi1 amplitude of mode 1
the building. It requires execution of nonlinear static analysis
at level i, N the number of stories in building
that allows monitoring progressive yielding of the structures.
Then, Sa and Sd are calculated for every point on the capac-
The building is subjected a lateral load. The load magnitude
ity curve using the following equations:
increase until the building reaches target displacement. This
target displacement represents the top displacement when the Sa Vb 1
building is subjected to design level ground excitation. = (3)
g w α
roof
Sd = (4)
2.1 Target Displacement MPF1 ∅roof1

where Vb base shear, w building total weight, roof roof dis-

Target displacement determines building performance cri- placement
teria. There are recently many methods to determine tar- To convert a demand spectrum from Sa and T format to
get displacement. These methods can be listed as (1) ADRS format, it is required to calculate the value of Sd for
capacity spectrum method (ATC-40) [4], (2) displacement each point of the curve using the following equation:
method (FEMA-356) [11], and (3) displacement modifica-
tion (FEMA-440) [12]. T 2 Sa
Sd = (5)
4π 2

2.1.1 Capacity Spectrum Method
Capacity spectrum method needs conversion of the capacity
curve and demand response into capacity spectrum (Sa vs
Sd ), a representation of the capacity curve in acceleration–
displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format [4].
The general process for converting the capacity curve to
capacity spectrum is to first calculate the modal participation
factor (MPF1 ) and the modal mass coefficient (α1 ), using the
following equations:
Figure 2 illustrates the capacity spectrum method. A bilin-
ear representation of the capacity spectrum is needed to esti-
mate the effective damping and appropriate reduction in spec-
tral demand. It requires definition of the point (api , dpi ) which
is the trial performance point. If the reduced response spec-
trum is found to intersect the capacity spectrum at the esti-
mated point, then that point is the performance point.
2.1.2 Displacement Coefficient Method (FEMA 273/356)

 FEMA 356 presents static nonlinear procedure. This method

m i ∅i1 is accomplished by modifying the elastic response from
MPF1 =  (1)
m i ∅i1
2 SDOF equivalent with coefficient factors C0 , C1 , C2 , and

Fig. 2 Performance point

according to capacity spectrum
method

123
7694
Fig. 3 Performance point according to the displacement coefficient
method
C3 [11] as follows:
 2
Te
δT = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa g (6)
2π
where Te effective fundamental period, C0 modification fac-
tor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF
system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF sys-
tem, C1 modification factor to relate expected maximum
inelastic displacement to displacement calculated for lin-
ear elastic response, C2 modification factor to represent the
effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness degradation, and
strength deterioration on maximum displacement response,
C3 modification factor represent increased displacement due
to dynamic P −  effect. Sa response spectrum acceleration.
g acceleration of gravity.
Figure 3 illustrates displacement coefficient method to
determine target displacement (δT ). The process starts by
setting effective fundamental period that consider inelastic
condition. Effective fundamental period is representation of
linear stiffness of equivalent SDOF system and correspond to
maximum spectral acceleration (Sd ). Then, target displace-
ment can be specified using Eq. 6.
2.1.3 Displacement Modification (FEMA 440)
These previous two methods may produce different results.
Thus, FEMA 440 through ATC-55 Project produced FEMA
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699
Fig. 4 Force-deformation curve
440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Pro-
cedures [12]. This method has equation, which is similar
to displacement coefficient method, to determine target dis-
placement (δT ). However, there are modifications to deter-
mine C1 and C2 as follows:
R−1
C1 = 1 + (7)
aTe2
 
1 R−1 2
C2 = 1 + (8)
800 Te
where R ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield
strength coefficient, a 130, 90, and 60 for site category B, C,
and D, respectively
2.2 Nonlinear Plastic Hinge
Pushover analysis needs the development of the force–
deformation curve for the critical section of beams and col-
umn by using the guideline [11]. Such a curve is presented
in Fig. 4.
Linear response from unloaded condition (A) to effective
yield (B) describes load deformation relation. Then, the stiff-
ness reduce from point B to C. Point C has resistance equal
to the nominal strength then sudden decrease in lateral load
resistance to the response at reduced resistance (D) to final
loss of resistance (E). The slope of line BC is usually obtained
between 0 and 10 % of the initial slope. Line CD corresponds
to initial failure of the member. Line DE represents the resid-
ual strength of the member.
These points are specified according to FEMA to deter-
mine hinge rotation behavior of RC members. The points
between B and C represent acceptance criteria for the hinge,
which is immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS), and
collapse prevention (CP).
2.3 Performance Limits
Generally, the performance limit can be categorized into two
groups: (1) global/structural limits and (2) local/element lim-
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699 7695

Table 2 Deformation limits for each performance levels (ATC-40) similar plan arrangement with three number of bay (6.0 m)
Immediate Damage Life Structural as shown in Fig. 5. The story height is 4.0 m for all stories.
occupancy control safety stability The building structures of different heights are considered to
represent short-, medium-, and long-period structures.
0.01 0.01–0.02 0.02 0.33 Vi/Pi

3.1 Seismic Design Parameter

its [2,4,13,14]. The global limits are requirements for the The buildings are intended for regular residential building in
gravity load capacity, lateral load resistance and lateral defor- Haql, which is the most severe zone in seismic according to
mation. Where an element loses capacity to support gravity SBC-301. Summary of seismic site parameter is presented
load, the structure must be able to redistribute its load to in Table 5.
other elements. The lateral load resistance of the building SBC-301 provides required minimum standards for the
system should not degrade by more than 20 % of the maxi- equivalent lateral force procedure of seismic analysis of
mum resistance of structure. Lateral deformations are to be structure as presented in Table 6. An equivalent lateral force
checked against the deformation limits as shown in Table 2. consists of application of equivalent static lateral forces to
The maximum drift is defined as the interstory drift at the a linear mathematical model of structure. The design base
performance point displacement. shear (Vb ) is derived as:
The element limits are many times governed by non-
structural as well as component damage. The limits on the Vb = Cs W (9)
response of structural element, such as beams and columns,
where Cs the seismic design coefficient, W the total dead
are based on plastic hinge rotation capacities. For exam-
load and applicable portions of the other loads
ple, Tables 3 and 4 present the deformation limits according
The seismic design coefficient (CS ) is determined in
to ATC-40 in terms of plastic hinge rotations of beam and
accordance with the following equation:
column elements in a RC moment resisting frame. There-
fore, one should ensure the failure of a member by flexural SDS
CS = (10)
demands and shear failure does not occur before these rota- R/I
tion limits are reached.
The value of CS need not exceed the following:
SD1
CS = (11)
3 Description Of Building T (R/I )
And not be less than the following:
The buildings selected for this study are four RC frame struc-
tures having 3, 6, 9, and 12 stories. All selected buildings have CS = 0.044SDS I (12)

Table 3 Plastic rotation limits for RC beams controlled by flexure (ATC-40)

ρ−ρ V√
ρbal Trans. Reinf. Modeling parameter Plastic rotation limit
bw d f c

a b c Immediate occupancy Life safety Structural stability

≤0.0 C ≤3 0.025 0.05 0.2 0.010 0.020 0.025

≤0.0 C ≥6 0.020 0.04 0.2 0.005 0.010 0.020
≥0.5 C ≤3 0.020 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.010 0.020
≥0.5 C ≥6 0.015 0.02 0.2 0.005 0.005 0.015

Table 4 Plastic rotation limits for RC column controlled by flexure (ATC-40)

P V√
Ag f c Trans. Reinf. Modeling parameter Plastic rotation limit
bw d f c

a b c Immediate occupancy Life safety Structural stability

≤0.1 C ≤3 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.010 0.020

≤0.1 C ≥6 0.016 0.024 0.2 0.005 0.010 0.015
≥0.4 C ≤3 0.015 0.025 0.2 0.003 0.005 0.015
≥0.4 C ≥6 0.012 0.02 0.2 0.003 0.005 0.010

123
7696 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699

Fig. 5 Structural arrangement

Table 5 Site parameter for Haql according to SBC-301 Table 7 RC section details for the selected buildings
SS S1 Fa Fv SMS SM1 SDS SD19 Building Member Floor Width mm Depth mm Reinforcement
details
0.865 0.281 1.054 1.519 0.912 0.427 0.608 0.285
3-Story Beam 1–3 400 600 4 − φ16 (top) +
SS , the maximum spectral response acceleration at short periods; S1 , 2 − φ16 (bottom)
the maximum spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s; Fa ,
acceleration-based site coefficient; Fv , velocity-based site coefficient; Column 1–3 500 500 12 − φ18
SMS , the maximum spectral response acceleration at short periods 6-Story Beam 1–3 400 600 6 − φ18 (top) +
adjusted for site class; SM1 , the maximum spectral response acceler- 3 − φ18 (bottom)
ation at a period of 1 s adjusted for site class; SDS , the design spectral Beam 4–6 400 600 6 − φ16 (top) +
response acceleration at short periods, SD1 , the design spectral response 3 − φ16 (bottom)
acceleration at a period of 1 s
Column 1–3 600 600 12 − φ20
Column 4–6 500 500 8 − φ20
Table 6 Seismic design parameter according to SBC-301
9-Story Beam 1–3 400 600 6 − φ20 (top) +
Building R I H Ta (s) Cs W (kN) V (kN) 3 − φ20 (bottom)
Beam 4–6 400 600 6 − φ18 (top) +
3-story 4 1 12 0.412 0.152 9,227.0 1,402.1 3 − φ18 (bottom)
6-story 4 1 24 0.768 0.093 19,765.0 1,829.6 Beam 6–9 400 600 6 − φ16 (top) +
9-story 4 1 36 1.107 0.064 30,485.0 1,959.2 3 − φ16 (bottom)
12-story 4 1 48 1.434 0.050 41,883.0 2,077.7 Column 1–3 700 700 16 − φ20
R, response modification coefficient (R = 4 for intermediate moment Column 4–6 600 600 12 − φ20
frame); I, the occupancy importance factor; Ta , the approximate funda- Column 6–9 500 500 8 − φ20
mental period of the building; Cs, the seismic response coefficient; W 12-Story Beam 1–3 400 600 7 − φ20 (top) +
the total gravity load of the building; V, the seismic base shear 3 − φ20 (bottom)
Beam 4–6 400 600 6 − φ20 (top) +
3 − φ20 (bottom)
The base shear is distributed along the height of the structure Beam 6–9 400 600 6 − φ18 (top) +
to simulate induced inertial forces on each level. The lateral 3 − φ18 (bottom)
forces (Fx) induced at any level are determined from the Beam 9–12 400 600 6 − φ16 (top) +
following equation: 3 − φ16 (bottom)
Column 1–3 800 800 16 − φ22
Fx = Cvx Vb (13) Column 4–6 700 700 16 − φ20
wx h kx Column 6–9 600 600 12 − φ20
Cvx = n (14)
i=1 wi h i
k Column 9–12 500 500 8 − φ20

where Cvx vertical distribution factor, Vb total design lateral

force or shear at the base of structure, wi and wx the portion 3.2 RC Design
of total gravity load of the structure, h i and h x the height
from the base to level i or x, k an exponent related to the The RC designs are based on SBC-304. It is generally
structure period. believed that structural design for building is relatively not a

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699
Fig. 6 The demand spectrum
unique result. Different designer may have different design
result. However, the RC designs for the selected buildings are
generally based on common practice. The RC design section
details are provided in Table 7.
Fig. 7 Pushover curve (triangular load pattern)
7697
4 Analytical Modeling
SAP2000 has been used for the analysis. A three-dimensional
model for each building has been created to undertake the
nonlinear analysis [15]. Beams and columns are modeled
as nonlinear frame element with lump plasticity at the start
and the end of each element. SAP2000 provides default
hinges, PMM hinges for columns, and M3 hinges for beam
as described in FEMA-356.
After assigning all properties of the models, the displace-
ment controlled pushover analysis of the models is per-
formed. The incremental loads are applied after applying the
gravity loads. The models are then pushed using triangular
load pattern and uniform load pattern separately until target
displacements are reached. For this purpose, number of step
in which displacement and target displacement at roof must
be defined.
In this study, the seismic responses of structures are evalu-
ated using the design level earthquake in Haql as specified in
SBC-301. Demand response spectrum curve is constructed
as shown in Fig. 6.
123
7698
Fig. 8 Deformation for all building at the performance point
5 Result and Discussion
Pushover curves for all building are presented in Fig. 7. These
curves represent the global behavior of the frame with stiff-
ness and ductility. The slope of pushover curves is gradually
reduced with increase in the lateral displacement of the build-
ing. This is due to the progressive formation of plastic hinges
in beam and column throughout the structure.
As mentioned earlier in Sect. 2.3, two performance lim-
its are considered in pushover analysis. The first one corre-
sponds to structural stability limit. This limit state is defined
at global structure (in terms of lateral load resistance) as well
as at the story level (in terms of the maximum interstory drift
ratio). The second limit is based on plastic hinge rotation
capacities that are obtained for each member depending on
its cross-sectional geometry.
The three methods (ATC-40; FEMA-356; and FEMA-
440) used to determine performance points produce different
results. Capacity spectrum method (ATC-40) gives the lowest
performance point. However, the all three methods indicate
that the margin safety against collapse is high and there are
sufficient strength and displacement reserves.
Figure 8 shows deformation for the all buildings at the per-
formance point. From this information, the maximum drift
ratio is 0.008, 0.008, 0.007, and 0.006 for 3-, 4-, 9-, and 12-
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699
Fig. 9 Deformed shape of frames at the performance point
story building, respectively. The maximum story drifts for all
building are <0.01, which can be categorized in Immediate
Occupancy (IO) according to Table 2.
At every deformation step, pushover analysis determines
plastic rotation hinge location in the elements and which
hinges reach the FEMA limit state, which are IO, LS, and
CP using colors for identification. Plastic hinges formation
has been obtained at different displacement levels or perfor-
mance points. The deformed shapes and plastic hinges of
frame are presented in Fig. 9. According to this information,
the damage of building is still limited for all buildings since
the worst element yields at IO to LS level.
6 Conclusion
A study has been carried out to evaluate the seismic per-
formance of buildings using pushover analysis. The work
presented has considered four buildings, which are designed
based on SBC-301. The pushover analysis has been per-
formed using the following methods: capacity spectrum
method (ATC-40); displacement coefficient method (FEMA-
356); and displacement modification methods (FEMA-440).
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:7691–7699
The major conclusion of the study presented here are as
follows:
1. Pushover analysis is a relatively simple way to monitor
nonlinear behavior of the building;
2. The three methods (ATC-40; FEMA-356; and FEMA-
440) used to determine target displacement (δt ) produce
different results. Capacity spectrum method (ATC-40)
gives the lowest target displacement, δt . However, the
all three methods indicate that the margin safety against
collapse is high and there are sufficient strength and dis-
placement reserves.
3. The maximum story drifts range 0.04 (0.01H) and 0.08
(0.02H), which can be categorized in damage control
(DC).
4. The damage of building is still limited for all buildings
since the worst element yields at IO to LS level.
5. In general, the buildings designed according to SBC-301
satisfy the three method (ATC-40, FEMA-356, FEMA-
440).
By facts that only single symmetry plan in one seismic zone
has been considered, the conclusions of the present study
are limited. In addition, pushover analysis is approxima-
tion method that may not accurately represent dynamic phe-
nomena with a large degree accuracy. The different parame-
ters used in the study have been considered to deterministic
although in reality their statistical variations are significant
enough requiring a reliability-based framework for this study.
References
1. The Saudi Building Code 301 Structural—Loading and Forces,
The Saudi Code National Building Committee (2007)
View publication stats
7699
2. Mondal, A.; Ghosh, S.; Reddy, G.: Performance-based evaluation
of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frame. J. Struct.
Eng. 56, 1808–1819 (2013)
3. Whittaker, A.; Hart, G.; Rojahn, C.: Seismic response modification
factors. J. Struct. Eng. 125(4), 438–444 (1999)
4. ATC-40.: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings: Applied Technology Council (1996)
5. Giannopoulos, P.I.: Seismic assessment of RC building according
to FEMA 356 and Eurocode 8. In: 16th Conference on Concrete,
TEE, ETEK, 21-23/10/2009
6. Fajfar, P.: Structural analysis in earthquake engineering—a break-
through of simplified non-linear method. In: 12th European Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper Ref: 843 (2002)
7. Martino, R.; Spacone, E.; Kingsley, G.: Nonlinear pushover analy-
sis of RC structures. Adv. Technol. Struct. Eng., 1–8 (2000). doi:10.
1061/40492(2000)38
8. Vijayakumar, A.; Babu, D.L.V.: Pushover analysis of existing rein-
forced concrete framed structures. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 71(2), 195–
202 (2012)
9. Poluraju, P.; Rao, N.: Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete
frame structure using SAP 2000. In: International Journal of Earth
Science and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL,
pp. 684-690 (2011)
10. Elnashai, A.S.: Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for
earthquake applications. Struct. Eng. Mech. 12(1), 51–69 (2001)
11. FEMA-356.: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Reha-
bilitation of Buildings American Society of Civil Engineers (2000)
12. FEMA-440.: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005)
13. Favvata, M.J.; Naoum, M.C.; Karayannis, C.G.: Seismic evaluation
of infilled RC structures with nonlinear static analysis procedures.
In: Proceedings of the 15th World on “Earthquake Engineering”
Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September (2012)
14. Favvata, M.J.; Naoum, M.C.; Karayannis, C.G.: Limit states
of RC structures with first floor irregularities. J. Struct. Eng.
Mech. 47(6), 791–818 (2013)
15. SAP2000.: Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design,
Computers & Structures, Inc., Berkley, CA, USA
123