Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced

Concrete Structures

ABSTRACT
Occurrences of recent earthquakes in India and in different parts of the world and the
resulting losses, especially human lives, have highlighted the structural inadequacy of
buildings to carry seismic loads. There is an urgent need for assessment of existing
buildings in terms of seismic resistance. Most of the existing buildings, which do not
fulfill the current seismic requirements, may suffer extensive damage or even collapse if
shaken by a severe ground motion. The aim of evaluation is to assess the seismic capacity
of earthquake vulnerable buildings or earth quake damaged buildings for future use. The
evaluation may also prove helpful for degree of intervention required in seismically
deficient structures.

INTRODUCTION
The Buildings, which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble like houses of cards
during earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed. Experience gain from the recent
earthquake of Bhuj, 2001 demonstrates that the most of buildings collapsed were found
deficient to meet out the requirements of the present day codes. In last decade, four
devastating earthquakes of world have been occurred in India, and low to mild intensities
earthquakes are shaking our land frequently. Due to wrong construction practices and
ignorance for earthquake resistant design of buildings in our country, most of the existing
buildings are vulnerable to future earthquakes. it is imperative to seismically evaluate the
existing building with the present day knowledge to avoid the major destruction in the
future earthquakes. The Buildings found to be seismically deficient should be
retrofitted/strengthened.
Evaluation of building is required at a two stages (1) Before the
retrofitting, to identify the weakness of the building to be strengthened, and (2) After the
retrofitting, to estimate the adequacy and effectiveness of retrofit. Evaluation is complex
process, which has to take not only the design of building but also the deterioration of the
material and damage cause to the building, if any. The difficulties faced in the seismic
evaluation of the building are threefold. There is no reliable method to estimate the in-situ
strength of the material in components of the building. Analytical method to model the
behavior of the building during earthquake is either unreliable or too complex to handle
with the generally available tools. The third difficulty is the un-availability of reliable
estimate of earthquake parameters, to which the buildings expected to be subjected
during its residual life.

Evaluation criteria
The consequence of evaluation of any building should be quantitatively evaluated for its
effectiveness from the viewpoints of strength, stiffness & ductility.

1. Strength/capacity:
The essence of virtually all seismic evaluation procedures is a comparison between some
measures of Demand that earthquake take place on a structure to measure of the
Capacity of the building to resist. Traditional design procedures characterize demand
and capacity as forces. Base shear (Total Horizontal force at the lowest level of the
building) is a normal parameter i.e. used for the purpose. It involves calculation of base
shear demand that would be generated by given earthquake, or intensity of ground
motion, and compare this to the base shear capacity of the building. The capacity of the
building is an estimate of base shear that would be acceptable. If the building subjected
to a force equal to its base shear capacity, some deformation and yielding might occur in
some structural elements, but the building would not collapse or reach undesirable level
of damage. If the demand generated by the earthquake is less than the capacity than the
design is deemed acceptable. More sophisticated works needs to compare the seismic
demand of every structure elements with its capacity i.e. demand capacity ratios.

2. Stiffness:
The first formal seismic design procedure recognized that the earthquake acceleration
would generate forces proportional to the weight of building. Over the years, empirical
knowledge about the behaviour of real structures in earthquakes and theoretical
understanding of structural dynamics advanced. The basic procedure modified to reflect
the demand generated by the earthquake acceleration also a function of stiffness of the
structure. It helps to recognize the inherently better behavior of some building over the
others.
To get minimum damage and less psychological fear in the mind of peoples during the
earthquake. IS 1893: 2002 permits maximum inter-story drifts as 0.004 times the story
height. Inter-story drifts always depend upon the stiffness of the respective storey (IS
1893-2002). Again the abrupt changes in the stiffness along the load paths may lead to
high stress concentration at some load transfer points and may create local crushing.
Hence stiffness always plays vital roles and considered as an important criteria in the
seismic evaluation of the building.

3. Ductility:
Earthquake motion often induces forces large enough to cause inelastic deformations in
the structure. If the structure is brittle, sudden failure could occur. However ,if the
structure is to made to behave to ductile, sudden failure to sustain the earthquake effects
4

better with some deflection larger than the yield deflection by absorption of energy. The
capacity of structure to resist seismic demand is a property known as ductility. It is the
ability to deform to beyond initial yielding without failing abruptly. This property is a
critical component of structural integrity and required as an essential element for safety
from sudden collapse during severe shocks.

Methods for the evaluation of existing buildings

The aim of these methods is to direct the evaluating engineer to identify the weak links in
the structure that could precipitate the structural or component failure.
The methodologies available so far for the evaluation of existing buildings can be broadly
divided into two categories.
1. Qualitative Methods
2. Analytical Methods
1. Qualitative Methods:
These are based on the background information available of the
building and its construction site. It requires some or few documents like architectural
and structural drawings, past performance of similar buildings, under severe earthquakes,
visual inspection report, some non-destructive test results. The methods under this
category are Field Evaluation Method, Rapid Visual Screening Method, ATC-14
Methodology etc.
The qualitative evaluation of a structure is conducted by a visual
examination of the structure along with some testing of materials.
2. Analytical Methods:
These methods are based on the considerations of the capacity and
ductility of buildings on the basis of available drawings. The methods in this
considerations Capacity/Demand (C/D) method, Screening method, Pushover analysis,
Nonlinear inelastic analysis etc. It is often seen that the drawings of buildings are
generally not available due to one or more reasons. Moreover, the evaluation of the
capacity and ductility of a building is also a cumbersome task, which is difficult for a
field engineer and may not be practical in the present Indian scenario.
It is important to underline that the methods of evaluation
procedure should be very simple and immediate based on synthetic information that can
prove suitable for risk evaluation on large populations. Therefore, qualitative evaluation
of the buildings is generally being carried out.

Components of seismic evaluation methodology

The evaluation of any building requires a wide knowledge about the structures, cause and
nature of damage in structures and its components, material strength etc.
The proposed methodology is divided into three components.
1. Condition assessment
5

2. Visual inspection/Field evaluation

3. Non-Destructive Evaluation

1.Condition Assessment for Evaluation

The aim of condition assessment of the structure us the collection of information about
the structure and its past performance characteristics to similar type of structure during
past earthquakes ant the qualitative evaluation of structure for decision making purpose.

Data Collection/Information Gathering:

Collection of the data is an important portion for the seismic evaluation of the existing
building. The information required for the evaluated building can be divided as follows
Building data
Architectural, structural and construction drawings
Vulnerability parameters : no.of storeys, year of construction and total floor area
Specifications , soil reports, and design calculations
Seismicity of the site
Construction data:
Identifications of gravity load resisting system
Identification of lateral load resisting system
Maintenance, addition, alteration, or modifications in structures
Field surveys of the structures existing conditions
Structural data:
Materials
Structural concept; Vertical and horizontal irregularities, Torsional eccentricity,
pounding, Short column and others
Detailing concept : Ductile detailing, special confining reinforcement
Foundations
Non-Structural elements

Past performance data:

Past performance of similar type of structure during the earthquake provides considerable
amount of information for the building, which is under evaluation process. Following are
the areas of concern, which are responsible for poor performance of buildings during
earth quake.
Material concerns:
Low grade concrete
Deterioration in concrete and reinforcement
High cement sand ratio
Corrosion in reinforcement
Use of recycled steel as reinforcement
6

Spalling of concrete by the corrosion of embedded reinforcing bars

Corrosion related to insufficient concrete cover
Poor concrete placement and porous concrete

Structural concerns:
The relatively low stiffness of the frames-excessive inter storey drifts, damage to
non structural items.
Pounding-column distress, possibly local collapse
Unsymmetrical building(U,T,L,V) in plan-torsional effects and concentration of
damage at the junctures
Unsymmetrical buildings in elevation- abrupt change in lateral resistance
Vertical strength discontinuities-concrete damage in the soft storeys
Short column
Detailing concerns:
Large tie spacing in columns lack of confinement if concrete core- Shear failures
Insufficient column lengths-concrete to spall
Locations of inadequate splices-Brittle shear failures
Insufficient column strength for full moment hinge capacity-brattle shear failure
Lack of continuous beam reinforcement-Hinge reformation during load reversals
Inadequate reinforcing of beam column joints or location of beam bar splices at
columns-joint failures
Improper bent up of longitudinal reinforcing in beams as shear reinforcementshear failure during load reversals
Foundation dowels that are insufficient to develop the capacity of columns steel
above-local column distress

Seismic evaluation data:

It provides a general idea about the building performance during an earthquake. The
criteria of evaluation of building will depend on the following
Material evaluation:
Building height > 3 storeys, minimum grade of concrete M20, desirable M30 to
M40 particularly in columns of low stories.
Maximum grade of steel will be Fe415 due to adequate ductility.
No significant deterioration in reinforcement
No evidence of corrosion or spalling of concrete
Structural components:
Evaluation of column shear strength and drift
Evaluation of plan irregularities
Evaluation of vertical irregularities
Evaluation of discontinuous load paths
7

Beam-column joints
Pounding
Interaction between frame and infill

Structural detailing:
Flexure members
Limitation of sectional dimensions
On minimum and maximum flexural reinforcement
Restriction of lap splices
Development length requirements
Shear reinforcement requirements
Columns
Limitations of sectional dimensions
Longitudinal reinforcement requirements
Transverse reinforcement
Special confining requirements
Foundation
Column steel dowelled into the foundation
Non-Structural components
Cornices, parapet, and appendages are anchored
Exterior cladding and veneer are well anchored

2.Field Evaluation / Visual Inspection Method

It is an integral part of the evaluation and is the most widely used form of NonDestructive Evaluation.

Procedure for visual inspection method :

Description
Perform a walk through inspection to become familiar with the structure
Gather background documents and information on the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the structure.
Plan the complete investigation
Perform detailed visual investigation and type of damage, cracks spalls and
delaminations, buckling or fracture of reinforcement, estimating drift
Equipments
Optical magnifier allows a detailed view of local areas of distress
Stereomicroscope allows a 3D view of surface
Fiber scopes and bore scopes
Tape
8

Flash light
Crack comparator
Pencil, sketch board, camera

Execution
To identify the location of vertical structural elements like columns or walls
To sketch the elevation with sufficient details
To take photographs of the cracks
Observation of the non-structural elements
Limitations
Only surface damages can be visualized
No identification of inner damage

Identification of seismic damage in building components

Possible damage in building components generally observed after earthquakes are as
follows

Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete columns:

Damage is mainly due to lack of confinement, large tie spacing, insufficient splice
length ,in adequate splicing at the same section, poor concrete quality, less than full
height masonry infill partitions.
The most common modes of failure are as follows.
Mode 1:
Formation of plastic hinge at the base of ground level columns
Mechanism:
The column, when subjected to seismic motion, its concrete begins to disintegrate and the
load carried by concrete shifts to longitudinal reinforcement of the column. This
additional load causes buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. As a result the column
shortens and looses its ability to carry even the gravity load.
Reasons: Insufficient confinement lengths and improper confinement in plastic hinge due
to smaller number of ties.
Design Consideration:
Consideration is to be paid on plastic hinge length or length of confinement.

Mode 2:
Diagonal Shear cracking in mid span of columns
Mechanism:
In old buildings column failures were more frequent since the strength of the beams in
such constructions was kept higher then that of the columns. This mode of failure brings
the loss of axial load carrying capacity of the column. As the axial capacity diminishes
the gravity load carried by the columns transferred to the neighboring elements resulting
massive redistribution of forces.
Reason:Wide spacing of transverse reinforcement

Mode 3:
Shear and splice failure of longitudinal reinforcement
Mechanism:
10

Splices of column longitudinal reinforcement in older buildings were commonly designed

for compression only with relatively light transverse reinforcement enclosing the lap.
Under earthquake motion, the longitudinal reinforcement may be subjected to significant
tensile stresses, which requires lap lengths for tension substantially exceeding those for
compression. As a result slip occurs along the splice length with spalling of concrete.
Reasons:
Deficient lap splice length of column longitudinal reinforcement with lightly spaced
transverse reinforcement.
Design consideration:
Lap splices should be provided only in the center half of the member length and it should
be proportionate to tension splice. Spacing of transverse reinforcement as per IS:139291993

Mode 4:
Shear failures in captive columns and Short columns
Mechanism:
A reduction in clear height of captive or short columns increases the lateral stiffness.
Therefore these columns are subjected to larger shear force during the earthquake. If
these columns , reinforced with conventional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement,
and subjected to relatively high axial loading fail by splitting of concrete along their
diagonals, if the axial loading is low, the most probable mode of failure is by shear
sliding along full depth cracks at the member ends.
Reason:
11

Large shear stresses, when the structure is subjected to lateral forces are not accounted for
in the standard frame design procedure.
Design consideration:
The best solution for captive column or short column is to avoid the situation otherwise
use separation gap in between the non-structural element and the vertical structural
element with appropriate measures.

12

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beams

Only a few examples exist in which buildings have exhibited plastic hinges in the beam.
The probable regions of hinging area are at and near their interactions with supporting
columns. An exception may be where a heavy concentrated load is carried at some
intermediate point on the span. The causes of hinging are lack of confinement of concrete
core .The shear flexure mode of failure is most commonly observed during the
earthquake.
Mode 5:
Shear-Flexure failure
Mechanism:
Two types of plastic hinges may form in the beams of multi-storied framed construction
depending upon the span of beams. In case of short beams or where gravity load
supported by the beam is low , plastic hinges are formed at the column ends and damage
occurs in the form of opening of a crack at the end of beam otherwise there is a formation
of plastic hinge at and near end region of beam in the form of diagonal shear cracking.
Reason:
Lack of longitudinal compressive reinforcement, infrequent transverse reinforcement in
plastic hinge zone, bad anchorage of bottom reinforcement into the support , bottom steel
termination at face of the column.
Design consideration:
The beams should not be too stiff with respect to adjacent columns so that plastic hinging
will occur in beam rather than column. To ensure that the plastic hinge zones in beams
have adequate ductility.

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column joints

Beam-column joints are critical element in frame structures and are subjected to high
shear and bond slip deformations under earthquake loading .The common causes for the
failure of beam-column joints are c/s properties of joint region, amount and distribution
13

of column vertical steel, inadequate or absence of reinforcement in beam-column joint,

absence of confinement of hoop reinforcement, inappropriate location of bar splices in
columns.
Mode 6:
Shear failure in Beam-Column joint
Mechanism:
The most common failures observed in exterior joints are due to either high shear or bond
due to severe earthquakes. Plastic hinges are formed in the beams at the column faces. As
a result cracks develop in the overall beam depth. In the interior joint, the beam
reinforcement at both the column faces undergoes different stress conditions because of
opposite sights of seismic bending moments results in failure if joint core.
Reason:
Inadequate anchorage of flexural steel in beams , lack of transverse reinforcement.
Design consideration:
Reliable anchorage of beam reinforcement in the joints

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

Generally slabs on beams performed well during earthquakes and are not dangerous but
cracks in slab creates serious aesthetic and functional problem. It reduces strength ,
stiffness and energy dissipation capacity of building for future earthquake. In flat slab
construction punching shear is the primary cause of failure.
Mode 7:
Shear cracking in slabs
Mechanism:
Damage to slabs often occurs due to irregularities such as large openings at concentration
of earthquake forces widely spaced shear walls, at the staircase flight landings.
Reason:
14

Existing micro cracks which widen due to shaking, differential settlement.

Design consideration:
Use secondary reinforcement in the bottom of the slab.
Avoid the use of flat slab in high seismic zones.

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Shear walls

Mode 8:
Four types of failure modes are generally observed
1. Diagonal tension-compression failure in the form of cross-shaped shear cracking.
2. Sliding shear failure cracking at the interface of new and old cracking.
3. Flexure and compression in bottom end region of wall.
4. Diagonal tension in the X shaped cracking in coupling beams
Mechanism:
Shear walls are subjected to shear and flexure deformations based on slenderness ratio.
Therefore damage in shear walls may generally occurs due to inadequate shear and
flexure capacity of wall.
Reason:
Flexural/boundary compression failure
Flexure/diagonal tension
Sliding shear
Coupling beams
Construction joint
Design consideration:
Concrete Shear walls must have boundary elements or columns thicker than walls,
which will carry vertical load after shear failure if wall.
A proper connection between wall vs. diaphragm as well as wall vs. foundation to
complete the load path.
Proper bonding at the construction joint in the form of shear friction
reinforcement
Provision of diagonal steel in the coupling beam.

15

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Infill walls

Infill panels in Reinforced concrete frames are the cause of unequal distribution of lateral
forces in the different frames of the buildings, producing vertical and horizontal
irregularities etc.
Mode 9:
Shear failure of Masonry infill
Mechanism:
Frames with infill possess much more lateral stiffness than the bare frame, and hence
initially attracts most of the lateral forces during an earthquake. Being brittle the infill
starts disintegrate as soon as its strength is reached.
Reason:
Infill causes asymmetry of load application, resulting in increased torsional forces and
changes in the distribution of shear forces between lateral load resisting system.
Design consideration:
Two strategies are possible either complete separation between infill walls and frame by
providing separation joint so that two systems do not interact or complete anchorage
between frame and infill to act as an integral unit.

16

Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Parapets

Un-reinforced concrete parapets with large height to thickness ratio and not improper
anchoring to the roof diaphragm may also constitute a hazard, the hazard posed by a
parapet increases in direct proportion to its height above building base.
Mode 10:
Brittle flexure out of plane failure
Mechanism:
Parapet walls are acceleration sensitive in the out of plane direction resulting in topple.
Reason:
Not properly braced
Design consideration:
Analyzed for acceleration forces and braced and connected with roof diaphragm.

Non-Destructive Testing
Visual inspection has the obvious limitation that only visible surfaces can be inspected.
Internal defects go unnoticed and no quantitative information is obtained about the
properties of concrete. For this reason a visual inspection is usually supplemented by
NDT methods.

Rebound Hammer/Swiss Hammer:

The rebound hammer is the most widely used non-destructive device for quick surveys to
assess the quality of concrete. Used for testing the concrete based upon the rebound
principal strength of in-place concrete.
Limitations:
Not give a precise value of compressive strength
Sensitive to the quality of concrete; Corbonation increases the rebound number.
More reproducible results from formed surface rather then finished surface.
17

Surface moisture and roughness also effect the reading

Not take more than one reading at the spot

Penetration Resistance Method-Winster probe test:

Used to determine the quality and compressive strength of in-situ concrete .It is based on
the depth of penetration of probes into concrete by means of powder-actuated driver.
This provides a measure of hardness or penetration resistance of the material that can be
related to its strength.
Limitations:
Both probe penetration and rebound hammer test provides means of estimating
the relative quality of concrete not absolute value of strength of concrete.
Probe test may be cause of minor cracks in concrete.

Rebar locator/Convert meter:

It is used to determine quantity, location, size and condition of reinforcing steel in
concrete. These devices are based on the interaction between reinforcing bars and low
frequency electromagnetic fields.
Limitations:
Difficult to interpret at heavy congestion of reinforcement
Embedded metals sometimes effect the reading.

Ultrasonic pulse velocity:

It is used to determine the elastic constants and the density. By conducting tests at various
points on a structure, lower quality concrete quality can be identified by its lower pulse
velocity. Pulse-Velocity measurements can detect the presence of voids or discontinuities
within a wall.
Limitations:
An increase of moisture content increases the velocity.
The pulse may propagate through the bars and result in an apparent pulse velocity
which is higher than that propagating through concrete.
Presence of voids and cracks increases the length of travel path and result in an
longer travel time.

Impact Echo:
It is a method for detecting discontinuities within the thickness of wall.
Limitations:
Accuracy mainly depends on the skill of engineer.
The size, type, sensitivity and natural frequency of the transducer also affect the
results.

Spectral analysis of surface waves:

18

To assess the thickness and elastic stiffness of material, size and location of
discontinuities within the wall such as voids, large cracks.
Limitations:
Interpretation of results is complex.
Mainly used on slabs

Penetrating Radar:
It is used to detect the location of reinforcing bars, cracks, voids or other material
discontinuities.
Limitations:
Mainly used for detecting sub-surface condition of slab
Not useful for detecting the small differences in materials
Closely spaced bars make difficult to detect features below the layer of steel.

Method to perform simplified nonlinear analysis (Pushover

Analysis):
Two key elements of a performance based design procedure are demand and capacity.
Demand is a representation of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is a representation
of the structures ability to resist the seismic demand. The structure must have the
capacity to resist the demand of the earthquake such that the performance of the structure
is compatible with the objectives of the design. Simplified non-linear analysis procedures
using pushover methods such as the capacity spectrum requires determination of three
primary elements: Capacity, demand and performance. Each of these elements is briefly
discussed as:

Capacity:
The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of
the individual components of the structure. A Pushover analysis procedure uses a series of
19

sequential elastic analysis, superimposed to approximate a forcedisplacement capacity

diagram of the overall structure. The mathematical model of the structure is modified to
account for reduced resistance of yielding components. A lateral force distribution is
again applied untill a predetermined limit is reached. Pushover capacity curves
approximate how structure behaves after exceeding the elastic limits.
Demand (Displacement):
Ground motions during an earthquake produce complex horizontal displacement patterns
in structure that may vary with time. Tracking this motion at every time step to determine
structural design requirements is judged impractical. For nonlinear method it is easier and
more direct to use a set of lateral displacement as a design condition for a given structure
and ground motion, the displacement is an estimate of the maximum expected response
of the building during ground motion.
Performance:
Once a capacity curve and demand displacement are defined, a performance check can be
done. A performance verifies that structural & non-structural components are not
damaged beyond the acceptable limits of performance objectives for the forces and
displacement implied by the displacement demand.

Evaluation based upon Elastic Approach:

As mentioned in ATC-40, both elastic and in-elastic methods are available for the
analysis of existing concrete buildings. Seismic Evaluation can be performed by Elastic
procedures using DCRs (Demand-Capacity Ratios): The work carried out by (Bhardwaj,
2002) is based on elastic approach. This is a linear elastic analysis, which involves the
following three stages, namely:
Input data stage:
i) Study of site soil conditions.
ii) Measurement of actual geometry of buildings and its component.
iii) In-situ NDT to estimate to actual strength of concrete in the building components.
iv) Test to estimate actual strength of steel reinforcement bars in the building components
and the extent of corrosion, to carefully estimate their available diameters.
Analysis stage:
v) Preparation of 3 D model of building frame using measure geometry & material
properties.
vi) Estimation of design later force on building using IS 1893:2002 for the given design
response spectra.
vii) Application of design lateral force on 3D building model to determine stress
resultants (i.e. axial forces, shear forces, bending moments etc.), in the frame members
and determination of inter-story drifts.
viii) Determination of RC member capacities with actual cross-sectional geometry and
material properties as per IS 456:2000/IS 13920:1993 and DCR of RC members at
critical locations.
ix) Identification of deficient member or deficiency in lateral stiffness of the building if
any.
Retrofit and verification stage:
x) Identification of suitable retrofitting techniques to rectify the deficiencies.
20

xi) Estimation of the new member sizes along with the addl. Reinforcement required,
and/or the new members requires.
xii) Reanalysis of buildings to confirm the adequacy with then proposed retrofit
techniques.
xiii) If strength and stiffness requirement are satisfied than the propose retrofits scheme
may be adopted, else other more appropriate retrofits scheme may be identified.

ATC-40 PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION

This following is the step-by-step procedure prescribed in ATC-40 for the development of
Capacity Curve.
Step-by-Step Procedure to determine capacity:
The most convenient way to plot force displacement curve is by tracking the base shear
and roof displacement. The capacity curve is generally constructed to represent the first
mode response of the structure based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of
vibration is the predominant response of the structure. This is generally valid for
buildings with the fundamental periods of vibration upto about 1 second. For more
flexible buildings with the fundamental period > 1 second, the analyst should consider
addressing higher mode effects is the analysis.
1) Create a computer model of the structure following the modeling rules as per ATC-40.
2) Classify each element in the model as either primary or secondary.
3) Apply lateral storey forces to the structure in proportion to the product of the mass and
fundamental mode shape. This analysis should also include gravity loads.
[As the name implies, it is the process of pushing horizontally with a prescribed loading
pattern. Incrementally untill the structure reaches a limit state. There are several levels of
sophistication that may be used for the pushover analysis]
i) Simply apply a single concentrated horizontal force at the top of the structure (for one
story building)
ii) Apply lateral forces to each storey in proportion to the standard code procedure
without the concentrated force Ft at the top
i.e.Fx = (Wx hx / PWx hx ) x V ..(1)
iii) Apply lateral forces in proportion to the product of storey masses and first mode
shape of the elastic model of the structure
i.e.Fx= (Wx x / Wx x ) x V. ..(2)
The capacity curve is generally constructed to represent the first mode response of the
structure based on assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration is the predominant
response of the structure.
21

iv) Same as level three untill first yielding. For each increment beyond yielding, adjust
the forces to be consistent with changing deflected shape.
v) Similar to (iii) & (iv) above, but include the effects of the higher mode of the vibration
in determining yielding in individual structural elements while plotting the capacity curve
for the building in terms of first mode lateral forces and displacements. The higher mode
effects may be determined by doing higher mode pushover analysis. (i.e. Loads may be
progressively implied in proportion to a mode shape other than the fundamental mode
shape to determine its in elastic behavior) For the higher modes the structure is being
both push & pulled concurrently to maintained mode shape.
4) Calculate member forces for the required combinations of vertical and lateral load.
5) Adjust the lateral force level so that some elements (on group of elements) are stressed
to with in 10% of its member strength.
6) Record the Base shear and the roof displacement. (It is also useful to record member
forces & rotations because they will be needed for the performance check)
7) Revise the model using zero (or very small) stiffness for the yielding elements.
8) Apply a new increment of lateral load to the revise structure such that another element
(or group of elements) yields.
[The actual forces and rotations for elements at the beginning of the increment are equal
to those at the end of the previous elements. However, each application of an increment
of lateral load is a separate analysis, which starts from zero initial conditions. Thus, to
determine when the next elements yields, it is necessary to add the forces from the
current analysis to the some of those from the previous increments]
9) At the increment of the lateral load and the corresponding increment of roof
displacement to the previous total to give the accumulated values of base shear and roof
displacement.
10) Repeat steps 7,8 & 9 untill the structures reaches an ultimate limit such as: instability
from P-_ effects, distortions considerably beyond the desire performance level, an
element reaching a lateral deformation level at which significant strength degradation
begins.

Fig.3.1 Capacity Curve

Conversion of Capacity curve to the capacity spectrum:

22

To use the capacity spectrum method it is necessary to convert the capacity curve, which
is in terms of base shear and roof displacement to what is called a capacity spectrum,
which is a representation of the capacity curve in Acceleration Displacement Response
Spectra (ADRS) format i.e. (Sa vs Sd). The required equations to make the
transformation are:
PF1 = {i=1 (wi i1)/g} / [ i=1 {wi ( i1)2/g}]
1 = {i=1 (wi i1)/g}2 / { i=1 (wi/g} X [ i=1 {wi ( i1)2/g}]
Sa = (V/W)/1
Sd = (_roof) / (PFiroof.1)
Where, PFi = Model participation factor for the first natural mode, 1 = Model mass
coefficient for the first natural mode,Wi /g = mass assign to level i, il = amplitude of
mode one at level i, N = Level N, the level which is the uppermost in the main portion of
the structure.
In order to develop the capacity spectrum from the capacity curve it is necessary to do a
point by point conversion to first mode spectral coordinates any point V i,_roof on the
capacity curve is converted to the corresponding point Sai ,Sdi on the capacity spectrum
using the equations written above.

Fig.3.2 Capacity Spectrum Conversion

Every point on a response spectrum curve is associated with a unique spectral
acceleration Sa, Spectral Velocity Sv, Spectral displacement Sd, and period T, to convert a
spectrum from a standard Sa VS T format found in a building code to ADRS format it is
necessary to determine the value of Sdi for each point on the curve Sai, Ti, this can be done
with equations:
23

Sdi=(Ti2 x Sai x g) / 42 . (3)

Standard demand response spectra contain a range of constant spectral acceleration and
second range of constant spectral velocity. Spectral acceleration and displacement at
period Ti, are given by
Sai g = (2S) / Ti, Sdi = (Ti x Sv )/ 2 ...........(4)

Fig.3.3 Response Spectrum Conversion

Calculating performance point:
1) A First choice of point api, dpi could be the displacement obtained using the equal
displacement approximation or it might be the end point of the capacity spectrum or it
might be any other point chosen on the basis of engineering judgement.
2) Develop the demand spectrum as shown in figure 3.4, draw the demand spectrum on
the same plot as the capacity spectrum as shown in figure 3.6
3) Referred to figure 3.8, determine if the demand spectrum intersects the capacity
spectrum at point api dpi or if the displacement at which the demand spectrum intersects
the capacity spectrum di is with in acceptable tolerance dpi as shown in figure 3.9.
4) If the demand spectrum does not intersects the capacity spectrum with in acceptable
tolerance than select a new api dpi point.
5) If the demand spectrum intersects the capacity spectrum with in acceptable tolerance
than the trial performance points api, dpi is the performance point, ap dp and the
displacement dp represents the maximum structural displacement expected for the
demand earthquake.
24

Fig.3.4 Reduced Response Spectrum

Fig.3.5 Intersection Point of Demand and Capacity Spectrums within Acceptable

Tolerance.

25

Fig.3.6 Capacity Spectrum After Step 2

Fig.3.7 Capacity Spectrum After Step 3

26

Fig.3.8 Capacity Spectrum After Step 5.

Fig.3.9 Capacity Spectrum After Step 6

27

REFERENCES:
1. Earth Resistant Design of Structures by Pankaj Agarwal, Manish Shrikhande.
2. Recent developments toward earthquake risk reduction in India by Anand
S. Arya, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee.
3. Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings by Taranpreet Singh,
Thapar institute of engineering & technology, (deemed university), Patiala
4. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofitting of Buildings and Structures N.Lakshmanan,
Structural Engineering Research Centre,CSIR Campus, Taramani.
5. Historical Developments And Current Status of Earthquake Engineering in India
(Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, 2000), Sudhir K. Jain, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur.
6. On Better Engineering Preparedness: Lessons from the 1988 Bihar Earthquake
Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol.8, No.3, 1992, Sudhir K. Jain, Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

28