Estimation of Displacement Demand in RC Frames and

Comparing with Target Displacement Provided by

FEMA-356

Benyamin Monavari1
University of Tarbiat Moallem (Kharazmi), Tehran, Iran

Ali Massumi2
University of Tarbiat Moallem (Kharazmi), Tehran, Iran

Alireza Kazem3
University of Tarbiat Moallem (Kharazmi), Tehran, Iran

SUMMARY

Under seismic loads on structures the maximum drift without total collapse is called target displacement. Most of
low- and medium-rise building structures are seismically designed using equivalent static method. In equivalent
static method, design forces obtain from elastic spectra which are reduced using response modification factor.
This coefficient represents the structures inelastic performance and indicates strength and hidden ductility of
structures in inelastic phase. Ultimate deformation of the structure to its deformation in yielding is called
ductility coefficient that expresses inelastic deformation capacity of structures. The larger this coefficient is, the
higher level of energy absorption is observed and plastic joints are formed more than before, so accurate
determination of yielding points and ultimate displacements are very important. In this paper some failure
criteria are used to estimate buildings seismic demands. To investigate these criteria, pushover analysis is used
on reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. Using combination of these criteria result displacements closed to
the target displacement presented in FEMA-356.

Keyword: Target displacement, Failure criteria, RC frame, Pushover, FEMA-356.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nonlinear static analysis is a simple technique which can be used to estimate dynamic demands of
structures under seismic excitations. Some investigations are made by Krawinkler and Seneviratna
1997, Gupta and Krawinkler 2000, Rofooei et al. 2006, Shakeri et al. 2010, Jiang et al. 2010 and Geol
2011 to estimate demands for buildings by using the pushover analysis. Also many other methods and
criteria are used to estimate target displacement of structures. Recently some investigations are done to
obtain the target displacements from various procedures (Gupta and Krawinkler 2000, shakeri et al.
2010, Jiang et al. 2010). One of the widely used procedures to estimate the target displacement in the
nonlinear static procedure is the coefficient method defined in the FEMA-356 document 2000, but in
this paper, nonlinear static analysis and five locals and overall yields and failure criteria are used to
estimate seismic demands of buildings. The failure means losing structure’s performance during the
earthquake or subsequent effects. Due to the consequent excitations of an earthquake or lateral
imposed loads on a structure, the stiffness of some elements of structure decreases and the structure
starts to fail and lose its performance; although failure may also happen in small parts of structure or at
the whole. The damage of structures under lateral loads is a major problem in civil engineering and
some damage indices are suggested to delimit these damages (such as: Lybas and Sozen 1977, Shah
1984, Park et al. 1987, Oh 1991, Sadeghi 1998). Some investigations are done by using these damage

1
M.Sc. Student, Email: benjamin.monavari@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Email: massumi@tmu.ac.ir
3
M.Sc. Student, Email: alireza_kazem@yahoo.com
indices such as: Park et al. 1988, Ladjinovic and Folic 2004, Sawada et al. 2004, De Guzman and Ishiy
Ama 2004, Sadeghi and Nouban 2010, Yuchuan et al. 2011, Ghosh et al. 2011.
In follows some structures are analysed with nonlinear static analysis. Some collapse criteria are
investigated on the results of these analyses, and finally results are compared with FEMA-356.

2. METHOD

In this study thirteen reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16
and 20 stories, having 3 and 4 bays were designed using seismic force levels obtained from the Iranian
Seismic Code 2005 and proportioned using the ACI318-99 Building Code and then were modeled by
IDARC. Pushover analysis with increasing triangular loading is used.

The criteria were investigated here expressed as:

I) Exceeding member curvature from the final member curvature ( ),

II) Exceeding inter-story drift from a maximum amount (ID),
III) Structural instability due to hinges formation and mechanism (SI),
IV) Exceeding the Park-Ang damage index from unit (DI), and
V) Exceeding stability index from a defined limit ( ).

2.1. Defining the criteria used in this study

2.1.1. Exceeding member curvature from the final member curvature ( )

As mentioned in Valles et al. 1996, ultimate deformation capacity of a section is considered its ultimate
curvature. Curvature analysis is done on the cross-section by using a fiber model. The incremental
curvature that is applied to the section is continued until the specified ultimate compressive strain in
the concrete or the specified ultimate strength of one of the rebar is reached.

2.1.2. Exceeding inter-story drift from a maximum amount (ID)

Exceeding the inter-story drift (ID) of structures for every floor from %3 (it’s the maximum amount
considered in standard No. 2800 Iran 2005).

2.1.3. Structural instability due to hinges formation and mechanism (SI)

This criterion is used when instability happened in whole or a part of structure due to hinges formation
and mechanism. There are four total instability due to structures geometry (Massumi 2004), as shown
in Fig. 1:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Figure 1. Four total instability

2.1.4. Exceeding the Park-Ang damage index from unit (DI)

Damage indices are investigated by many researchers such as Park et al. 1988, Ladjinovic and Folic
2004, De Guzman and Ishiy Ama 2004, Sadeghi and Nouban 2010, Ghosh et al. 2011.

The Park-Ang damage index developed base on experimental studies and observed damages in actual
building. As defined in Park and Ang 1985:

∫
(2.1)

where
Maximum experienced deformation,
Ultimate deformation of the element,
Yield strength of the element,
Incremental dissipated hysteretic energy,
Model constant parameter,
and

For verify these parameters, is used journals of Park et al. 1988 and De Guzman and Ishiy Ama 2004.

2.1.5. Exceeding stability index from a defined limit ( )

Exceeding stability index from . According to Iranian Seismic Code, the stability index defined
as:

(2.2)

where

Added shear in ith floor created by effects,

, (2.3)
and
Total dead and live loads for the ith floor and its higher floors,
Inter-story drift of the ith floor,
Height of the ith floor,
and

(2.4)

2.2. The procedure defined in this study to calculating the target displacement

Fig. 2 illustrated procedure for obtaining the target displacement is defined in this study.

Obtaining
Investigating Obtaining the
A Model Capacity
the Criteria Target Disp.
Curve

Figure 2. Procedure for obtaining the target displacement

At first the pushover of the structures are calculated and plotted by IDARC. Then at first three criteria
including DI, SI and are considered for failure points of the structure and then criteria of ID and
are studied (these two criteria usually notify the collapse in displacements less than displacements due
to the other criteria). In this study we use two groups of collapse criteria. These two groups are
containing of SI, DI, and ID criteria and SI, DI, and criteria that are called G1 and G2
respectively.

The results of each group seen in Fig. 3:

2-Story, 3-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 3-Storiy, 3-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

0.6
Base Shear / Effective Weight

Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.3

0.4
0.2
Pushover
0.2 Drift=1%
G1 Criteria 0.1
G2 Criteria
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2
Overall Drift (%) Overall Drift (%)

4-Storiy, 3-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 5-Storiy, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

Base Shear / Effective Weight
Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.3 0.2

0.2
0.1
0.1

0
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 Overall Drift (%)
Overall Drift (%)

6-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 7-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

0.2 0.15
Base Shear / Effective Weight
Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.15
0.1

0.1
0.05
0.05

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4
Overall Drift (%) Overall Drift (%)
 Figure 3. Investigation of collapse criteria for thirteen structures
8-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 9-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)
0.08
Base Shear / Effective Weight

Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.08

0.06
0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Overall Drift (%) Overall Drift (%)

10-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 11-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

0.06
Base Shear / Effective Weight

Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.06

0.04
0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5
Overall Drift (%) Overall Drift (%)

12-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF) 16-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

0.04
Base Shear / Effective Weight

Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.03

0.02
0.02

0.01

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Overall Drift (%) Overall Drift (%)

Figure 3. Investigation of collapse criteria for thirteen structures (continued)

 20-Story, 4-Bay RC Frame (MRF)

Base Shear / Effective Weight

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Overall Drift (%)

Figure 3. Investigation of collapse criteria for thirteen structures (continued)

Results after investigating all of the models and attaining amounts of the criteria for each structure
brought in Fig. 4:

4
Drift (%)

3 G1 Criteria
G2 Criteria
2

0
2 5 8 11 14 17 20
Story
Figure 4. Results of investigations the collapse criteria

As shown, the criteria of the second group (G2) due to criterion have a lot of dispersion and do not
give good results and need more investigations, but criteria of the first group (G1) are provided
acceptable results. The maximum amount of drifts due to G1 criteria is for four floors structure with
drift about 2%, and the minimum amount of drifts is for structures with more than ten floors with drift
about 1%. Because of logical amounts of ultimate drifts, G1 criteria are chosen for obtaining the target
displacements.

3. PROCEDURE TO COMPUTE TARGET DISPLACEMENT BY FEMA-356

The FEMA-356 recommends follow equation for computing the target displacement:

(3.1)

See FEMA-356 for details.

In Fig. 5 the target displacements for each structure by FEMA-356 seen:

 5

4 FEMA-356

Drift (%)
3

0
2 5 8 11 14 17 20
Story
Figure 5. The target displacements attained by FEMA-356

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In procedure used in this study, five criteria are used together and finally with four criteria are
considered points as failure points, that structural failure as a whole and in each of the floors are
considered. Can be sure these structures do not collapse before these points. With the values in this
study and surveys, is obtained an approximate equation with the best curve fit to the values for
calculate the target displacements for structures with various floors are investigated in this study. The
approximate of the target displacements were attained by the new procedure can be seen in Fig. 6.

4
G1 Criteria
3 Approximate
Drift (%)

0
2 5 8 11 14 17 20
Story
Figure 6. The approximate of the attained target displacement by the new procedure

The approximate equation can be expressed as:

( )
{ (4.1)

where

N= number of stories,

and

{
The given equation is acceptable for RC frame buildings studied in this paper with two to twenty
floors, and for using this equation for more floors, more study is needed.

In follows both the results of this study and values were obtained from FEMA-356 are put in Fig. 7.
5

G1 Criteria
4
FEMA-356
Drift (%)
3

0
2 5 8 11 14 17 20
Story
Figure 7. The results of procedure of in this study and FEMA-356

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper for obtaining the target displacement two groups of criteria were considered and then
pushover analyses were done. Finally the target displacements for thirteen structures were obtained.

As shown, in totally the G1 criteria result drifts about 1% to 2% but for structures with floors more
than ten, result drifts about 1%. These results are approximately close to obtained target displacements
from FEMA-356; however for structures with floors more than twelve are lower.

This is important to notice that these results are obtained due to versus triangular loading and it is
proposed that for more investigations the study repeated using seismic loads and modal pushover
analysis.

REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute. (1999), Building code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-99), Farmington Hills, U.S.A.
Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). (2005), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design
of Buildings, Standard No. 2800-05, 3rd edition, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran.
De Guzman, Ph., Ishiy Ama, Y. (2004). Collapse assessment of building structures using damage index. 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. No. 0734.
Ghosh, S., Datta, D, Katakdhond, A.A. (2011). Estimation of the Park-Ang damage index for planar multi-storey
frames using equivalent single-degree systems. Engineering Structures. 33:9, 2509-2524.
Gupta, A. Krawinkler, H. (2000). Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 29:9, 1287-1305.
Jiang, Y., Li, G, Yang, D. (2010). A modified approach of energy balance concept based multimode pushover
analysis to estimate seismic demands for buildings. Engineering Structures. 32:5, 1272-1283.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1997). Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance
evaluation. Engineering Structures. 20:4-6, 452-464.
Ladjinovic, Dj, Folic, R. (2004). Application of improved damage index for designing of earthquake resistant
structures. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. No. 2135.
Lybas, J.M., Sozen, M. A. (1977). Effect of beam strength and stiffness on dynamic behavior of reinforced
concrete coupled shear walls. University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign: Report N° SRS 444.
Massumi, A. (2004). Estimation of Response Modification Factors for RC-MRF Structures, Emphasizing on the
Effect of Overstrength and Redundancy (In persian), PhD Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran,
Iran.
Oh, B.H. (1991). Cumulative damage theory of concrete under variable-amplitude fatigue loading. ACI
Materials Journal, Technical Paper. 88:1.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, A. H. S. (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. ASCE journal
of Structural Engineering. 111:4, 722-739.
Park, Y.J., Ang, A. H.S., Wen, Y.K. (1987). Damage-limiting a seismic design of building. Earthquake Spectra.
3:1, 1-25.
Park, Y.J., Reinhorn, A.M., Kunnath, A.K. (1988). Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings.
Proceeding of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 7: 211-216.
Rofooei, F., Attari, N.K., Rasekh A., Shodja, A.H. (2006). Comparison of static and dynamic pushover analysis
in assessment of the target displacement. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 4:3, 212-225.
Sadeghi, K. (1998). Proposition of a damage indicator applied on R/C structures subjected to cyclic loading.
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. Vol. 1: 707-717.
Sadeghi, K, Nouban, F. (2010). A simplified energy based damage index for structures subjected to cyclic
loading. International Journal of Academic Research. 2:3, 2075-4124.
Sawada, K., Matsuo, A., Nakamura, Y., Shimizu, K. (2004). Minimum weight aseismic design of steel frames
considering the collapse mechanism and cumulative damage constraints. 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. No. 27.
Shah, S.P. (1984). Prediction of cumulative damage for concrete and reinforced concrete. Ateriaux et
constructions, Essais et Recherches.17:1, 65-68.
Shakeri, K., Shayanfar, M.A. and Kabeyasawa, T. (2010). A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for
estimating seismic demands of buildings. Engineering Structures. 32:1, 174-183.
The American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA Publication no. 356, Washington, DC,
USA.
Valles, R. E., Reinhorn, A. M., Kunnath, S. K., Li, C. and Madan, A. (1996), A Program for the Inelastic
Damage Analysis of Buildings, Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Yuchuan, L., Shaoqian, Gao Xuechao, G. (2011). An energy-based damage model for concrete structures under
cyclic loading. The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction. Vol.
14: 460-469.