c Indian Academy of Sciences

Sadhana Vol. 37, Part 2, April 2012, pp. 281297. 

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

designed as per past codes of practice
K RAMA RAJU, A CINITHA and NAGESH R IYER
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus, Taramani,
Chennai 600 113, India
e-mail: krraju@serc.res.in; cinitha@serc.res.in; director@serc.res.in
MS received 29 August 2010; revised 22 December 2011; accepted 28 December 2011
Abstract. Assessing the capacity of existing building as per the present codes of
practice is an important task in performance-based evaluation. In order to enhance the
performance of existing buildings to the present level of ductile design prescribed by
present codes and find the retrofit or design a rehabilitation system, there is an urgent
need to assess accurately the actual lateral load resistance and the potential failure
modes. In this paper, a typical 6-storey reinforced concrete (RC) building frame is
designed for four design cases as per the provisions in three revisions of IS: 1893
and IS: 456 and it is analysed using user-defined (UD) nonlinear hinge properties
or default-hinge (DF) properties, given in SAP 2000 based on the FEMA-356 and
ATC-40 guidelines. An analytical procedure is developed to evaluate the yield, plastic and ultimate rotation capacities of RC elements of the framed buildings and these
details are used to define user-defined inelastic effect of hinge for columns as P-M-M
and for beams as M3 curves. A simplified three parameter model is used to find the
stressstrain curves of RC elements beyond the post yield region of confined concrete.
Building performance of structural components in terms of target building performance levels are studied with the nonlinear static analysis. The possible differences in
the results of pushover analysis due to default- and user-defined nonlinear component
properties at different performance levels of the building are studied.
Keywords. Performance based evaluation; user-defined hinge; nonlinear static
analysis; capacity curves.
1. Introduction
For earthquake resistant design, evaluation of the seismic performance of buildings, it is
essential to determine if an acceptable solution in terms of capacity and performance is
achieved. The nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) is a promising tool (Krawinkler &
Seneviratna 1998; Inel & Ozmen 2006; ATC-40, 1996; FEMA273, 1997; FEMA356, 2000)
for seismic performance evaluation of existing and new structures. Pushover analysis gives an

For correspondence

281

282

K Rama Raju et al

estimate of seismic capacity of the structural system and its components based on its material
characteristics and detailing of member dimensions. The method there by evaluates the seismic
performance of the structure and quantifies its behaviour characteristics (strength, stiffness and
deformation capacity) under design ground motion. This information can be used to check the
specified performance criteria. Modelling the inelastic behaviour of the structural elements for
different levels of performance is an important step towards performance evaluation of building.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings FEMA 273/356 require realistic values of the effective cracked stiffness of
reinforced concrete (RC) members up to yielding for reliable estimation of the seismic force and
deformation demands. Yielding consisting of two parts, namely; (i) linear elastic stiffness up to
cracking and (ii) stiffness from cracking up to yielding, and in the present study both of them
are considered in the analysis. Panagiotakos & Fardis (2001) have shown that linear elastic analysis with 5% damping can satisfactorily approximate inelastic seismic deformation demands. In
many procedures available in literature, the secant stiffness to yielding and the ultimate deformation of RC members are commonly determined from section moment curvature relations and
integration thereof along the member length Panagiotakos & Fardis (1999).
Indian codes of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (IS: 456) and earthquake resistant
design (IS: 1893) are revised periodically. Assessing the capacity of existing building as per the
requirement of current codes of practice is an important task. In order to check the performance
of the building as against the demand of present seismic code IS: 1893 2002, nonlinear static
analyses are carried out to generate the capacity curve using finite element software, SAP2000.
The analyses have been performed for two cases; (i) default hinge case and (ii) user-defined
hinge case. Moment-rotation and stressstrain characteristics of components are considered in
the user-defined case. The deformation capacity of reinforced concrete components, beams and
columns are modelled in the form of plastic hinges using FEMA 356 and ATC 40 provisions for
default case. The yield, plastic and ultimate rotations ( y , pl , um ) of the columns and beams
are arrived for all the four cases based on Eurocode-8 and implemented in user-defined case. In
existing structures, the moment resisting frames were designed as per prevailing codes of practice
at the time of design of that building. Buildings designed at different times follow corresponding
prevailing codes of practice. Design details of the frame would be varying according to codes of
practice used. The present study is about the performance of moment resistant frames designed
as per different versions of codes of practice existing at different times in the past. This paper
discusses capacity curves and performance level for a 6 storey RC office building designed for
four design load cases (table 1), considering the three revisions of IS: 1893 and IS: 456 codes of
practice Rama Raju et al (2009).

Table 1. Load cases for the present study.

Case
1
2
3
4

IS:456

IS:1893

Load combination

Design procedure

Seismic zone

IS:456 1964
IS:456 1964
IS:456 1978
IS:456 2000

IS:18931966
IS:18931984
IS:18932002

DL+LL
DL+EQL
1.5(DL+EQL)
1.5(DL+EQL)

WS
WS
LS
LS

II
II
III

Note: DL: Dead Load; LL: Live Load; EQL: Earthquake Load; LS: Limit State; WS: Working Stress

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

283

61.1 + 14.3 61.1 + 14.3 kN

(11.8 + 1.9) kN/m

(11.8 + 1.9) kN/m

(4.9 + 0) kN/m
42.2 + 37.5 42.2 + 37.5 kN

(26 + 5) kN/m

(26 + 5) kN/m

(21.6 + 0) kN/m
42.2 + 37.5 42.2 + 37.5 kN

(26 + 5) kN/m

(26 + 5) kN/m

(21.6 + 0) kN/m
42.2 + 37.5 42.2 + 37.5 kN

(26 + 5) kN/m

(26 + 5) kN/m

(21.6 + 0) kN/m
42.2 + 37.5 42.2 + 37.5 kN

(26 + 5) kN/m

(26 + 5) kN/m

(21.6 + 0) kN/m
42.2 + 37.5 42.2 + 37.5 kN

(26 + 5) kN/m

(26 + 5) kN/m

(17.2 + 0) kN/m

(17.2 + 0) kN/m

(17.2 + 0) kN/m

7.5

7.5

7.5

1.1

4.1

(21.6 + 0) kN/m

(a)

All Units are in m

A

7.5m

7.5m

7.5m

7.5m
B

7.5m
C

7.5m
D

(b)

Plan of the building

Figure 1. (a). Elevation of the building with load. (b). Plan of building.

284

K Rama Raju et al

2. Description of the building

A typical frame of a 6-Storey office building is considered for the present study. The building is
designed for isolated RC footings with tie beams as type of foundation. The plan and elevation
details of the building studied are shown in figure 1. The building is analysed and designed for
load cases, as shown in table 1. The building is assumed to be situated in seismic zone III of IS:
18932002, of moderate intensity (i.e., 0.16 g), which is similar to zone 2A with stiff soil profile
as per UBC 1997. Concrete with compressive strength of 20 MPa and steel with yield strength

C2
B1
C1

7.5m

7.5m

8 # - 20

500

12 # - 20

12 # - 20

4 # -25

B1

B2

C2

C1

300

2 # -25

600

C1

B2

B1

B2

B1

B1

B2

B1

B2

B1

C2

B1

B2

B1

B2

B1

C5

B1

C5

C1

7.5m

7.5m

8 # -25

500

600

600

600

600
500

8 # -25

500

B3

C2

5m

B3

B2

B3

B2

B2

B3

B2

6 # -25

B2

B3

B2

B2

B3

B2

B2

B3

B2

B3

B2

C5

CASE 3. COLUMN AND BEAM LABELING

C4

10 # -25
C6

6 # -20

5 # -20

B1

B2

B3

C1

B3

B2

B3

B2

B3

B2

C4

B2

C3

B2

C2
B1

C1

C1

7.5m

COLUM NS
500

18 # -25

B2
C5

B2

7.5m
600

5 # -25

B3

C2

2 # -25

7 # -20

B2
C4

B2

B1

300

B3

C4

B2

C3

C1

300

B2

C4

C2

7.5m

B3

C5

C3
B2

B2

C4

C4

C1

5 # -25

12 # -25

500

C3

C4

C4

C5

C2

300

12 # -25

3 # -25

C1

B2

C3

600

300

3 # -25

B3

B3

BEAM S

600

300

2 # -25

B2

C4

500
500

300

B3

B2

B1

COLUMNS

4 # -25

B2

C5

B2

B1
C4

B3

B2

C4

B2

C2

B1
C4

B2

C4

B2

C2

B1

C5

7.5m

B2

C2

B1

8 # - 25

C3

C4

B2
C2

B1
C6

B1

BEAM S

B1

C6

B1

B1
C1

B2

B3

C4
B2

C3

B1

C5

B1

600

B2

B1

500

5m
5m
5m

C2

1.1m

B1

B2

C3

B1

C6

B1

600

B2

B1

C6

C2

B2

B1

C2

600

B1

B2

B2
C3

600

B2

B1

5m

B1

B2

5m

B2

B1
C3

B1

B1

B1
C3

5m

B1

C2

4 # -25

B1

500

6 # -25

8 # - 25

CASE 2. COLUMN AND BEAM LABELING

5m

B2

C3
B1

4 # -25

B2

600

5m

B1

4.1m

B1
C3

600
500

6 # -25

B2

4.1m

B1

C1

7.5m

4 # -25

B1

1.1m

B2

500

5m

B1

C2
B1

C3

7.5m

CASE 1. COLUMN AND BEAM LABELING

C3

B1

COLUMNS

300

4 # -25

4 # -25

C4

C3

B2

C4
B1

C3

BEAMS
600

B1
C2

B1

C4
B1

7.5m

B2

C2

B1
C4

B1

C1

600

8 # - 20

B1

B1

C4

B1
C4

7.5m

500

500

600

600

600

B2

B2

C2

B1

C4

C2

600

300

2 # -25

B1

B1

C4

B1

C2

COLUMNS

300

4 # -25
600

C1

B1

B2

C4

C2

B2

C3

B1

18 # -25

500

500
500

C1

B2

B1

B1

C3

B1

C2

B1
C2

B1

BEAMS

4 # -25

B2

B1

B2

C3

B1
C2

B2

B2

B1

B2

C3

B1

C2

C3

12 # -25
C4

16 # - 25

500
500

C2
B1

C1

B3

C2

B2

C2

B2

B1

B2

B1

500

B2

B3

B2

B1

B2

C3

B1

C3

B1
C2

B2

500

5m
5m
5m
5m

B3

C2

B2
4.1m

B2

C2

B2

C2

1.1m

B3

C2

B2

B2

B1

B2

B1

500

B2

C2

B3

B2

B1

C3

B1
C3

B2

B1

B2

600

B3

B2

C2

B2

B2

B1

C3
B1

C3

B2

B1

500

B2

B3

C2

B2

B2

C2

B2

C3

B3

C3

B2

B2

500

B3

B2

B2

B1

600

B2

B3

C2

B2

B3

C4

B2

C3

B2

5m

B3

B2

B3

5m

B2

B3

C4

B2

B2

5m

B3

B2

5m

B2

C3

B3

5m

B3

B2

4.1m

B2

1.1m

B3

600

5m

B2

10 # - 25

CASE 4. COLUMN AND BEAM LABELING

Figure 2. Design details of the building for the four cases studied.

C5

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

285

Table 2. Distribution of lateral force as per IS 18931966, 1984, 2002.

Floor level

Wi (kN)

hi (m)

Wi h2i

IS 18931966

Vi (kN)
IS 18931984

IS 18932002

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

675.67
2046
2127
2127
2127
2127
1865.67

1.1
5.2
10.2
15.2
20.2
25.2
30.2

817.56
55323.84
221293.08
491422.08
867901.08
1350730.1
1701562.6

0.068
4.636
18.54
41.173
72.7149
113.167
142.561

0.067
4.509
18.036
40.052
70.736
110.088
138.682

0.077
5.191
20.765
46.113
81.44
126.747
159.667

13095.33

Wi h2i

4689050.3

392.86

382.17

440

of 415 MPa are used for design case 1, case 2 and cases 3. Concrete with a compressive strength
of 25 MPa and steel with yield strength of 415 Mpa are used for design of case 4. The buildings
studied are typical beam-column RC frame with tie beams with no shear walls. The building
considered does not have any vertical plan irregularities (viz., soft storey, short columns and
heavy overhangs). The design details for the four cases are shown in figure 2. The earthquake
load calculations have been done as per the three revisions of IS 18931966, 1984 and 2002 and
the lateral force distribution is given in table 2.

3. Indian codes of practice

Building codes are revised from time to time and the revision necessitates checking the adequacy of existing building for the demand as per the latest codes of practice. Indian Code of
practice for plain and reinforced concrete (IS:456) for general building construction was first
published by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in 1953 and subsequently got revised in 1957.
It was further revised in 1964. In this version and before only working stress method was in
practice. The limit state design methodology was introduced in IS: 456 I978. Latest revision
for this code is IS:4562000. Similarly, the code for criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures IS: 1893, was introduced in 1962. This standard was subsequently revised in 1966,
1970, 1975, 1984 and 2002. Conventional earthquake resistant design of buildings was aimed to
provide minimum amount of lateral resistance to buildings and moreover the equations for the
estimation of base shear (seismic coefficient method) also modified with respect to the revisions
(Rama Raju et al 2009).

4. Modelling inelastic behaviour of structural members

Building loaded beyond elastic range can be analyzed with pushover analysis. The pushover
analysis procedure is considered as one of the powerful tools for performance evaluation of
buildings with respect to objectives set in performance based earthquake engineering. The
modelling is one of the important steps to be considered while conducting pushover analysis.
Appropriate model requires the determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in
the structure that are quantified by strength and deformation capacities.

286

K Rama Raju et al

4.1 Compressive stress of confined concrete members

The estimation of inelastic deformations of RC members requires the onset of concrete nonlinearity or tension steel yielding and ultimate compressive strain supported by the compression
zone (by accounting for the confinement provided by the stirrups using a pertinent confinement
model). Panagiotakos & Fardis (2001) proposed a modified Manders model based on experiments for finding stress and strain characteristics for confined concrete and the same are adopted
in Eurocode-8 with few modifications. In the present study, a simplified three parameter model
is developed to find the stressstrain curves beyond post yield region for confined concrete similar to Chung et al (2002). The developed methodology is used to find the stressstrain curves of
rectangular columns and beams. The developed (user-defined) stressstrain model for confined
concrete is having three salient co-ordinates, A( f cc , cc ), B(0.85 f cc , cu ) and C(0.3 f cc , 0.3 ) as
shown in figure 3.
The stressstrain relation of the descending part AC can be determined by
f c = Dc + f cc + Dcc , cc c 0.3 ,

(1)

f cc
where D is the slope of the descending curve and can be defined as D = 0.15
.
0.85 cc
The slope of the line joining Points A, B and C are assumed to be constant (D) and the stress
beyond strain 0.3 is assumed to be constant at 0.3 f cc . After reaching the stress 0.3 f cc , the stress
of the confined concrete is a constant value 0.3 f cc regardless of the increasing strain. Here, 0.3
is strain corresponding to the stress 0.3 f cc ;
The maximum compressive stress, f cc and strain, cc the ultimate compressive strain, cu
modified Manders equations given by Panagiotakos and Fardis are adopted in CEN Eurocode 8
are given in Eqs. (24).
Strength of confined concrete,

 

sx f yw 0.86
f cc = f c 1 + 3.7
.
(2)
fc

The strain at which the strength f cc takes place is taken to increase over the value c0 (assumed
to be 0.002) of unconfined concrete as cc and it is strain at maximum stress f cc of confined
concrete as:
cc = c0 (1 + 5 ( f cc / f c0 1 ) .
(3)
Here, f c0 is assumed to be f ck /1.2.

Figure 3. User-defined stressstrain curve for confined concrete.

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

287

The ultimate strain of the extreme fibre of the compression zone is taken as:
cu is ultimate concrete compressive strain, defined as strain at first hoop fracture;
cu = 0.004 + sx f yw / f cc .

(4)

Here, , f yw and sx (= Asx /bw sh ) are stirrup confinement effectiveness coefficient, stirrup
yield strength and volumetric ratio of confining steel (ratio of transverse steel parallel to the
direction of x loading), sh is stirrup spacing and f cc is the concrete strength, as enhanced by
confinement,
The stirrup confinement effectiveness coefficient, is obtained according to CEN Eurocode
from the following expression,




 b2
sh
sh
i
1
= 1
,
(5)
1
2bc
2h c
6bc h c
where bc , h c denoting the width and depth of the confined core of the section, and bi is the
centre line spacing of longitudinal bars (indexed by i) laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or
a cross-tie along the perimeter of the cross-section.
For slow (quasi-static) strain rate and monotonic loading, the longitudinal compressive stress
f c is given by equation (5)
f cc xr
fc =
.
(6)
r 1 + xr
Here, x = c /cc ,
E sec = f cc /cc and r = E c /(E c E sec ), where, modulus of elasticity of
concrete, E c = 5000 f ck MPa and E sec is secant modulus of elasticity at peak stress.
Ultimate concrete compressive strain, defined as strain at first hoop fracture (Fib Bulletin, TG
7.1) is also defined as
0.85 = 0.0035 + 0.075 (sx / f c0 1) 0.003.

(7)

In the current stressstrain curve the ultimate strain, cu is taken as maximum of equation (4) and
(7). The typical stressstrain curve for confined concrete generated with the proposed method for
cross-sections of columns and beams of a 6-storey building are shown in figure 4. It is observed
that the confined concrete strength of structural elements of case 4 is much higher than the other
design cases studied.
4.2 Inelastic deformation capacity of confined and unconfined RC beams and columns
Conventional earthquake resistant design of buildings was aimed to provide minimum amount
of lateral resistance to buildings. It was realized in 1970s that not only the strength, but the ductility is also important. In traditional seismic design, a structure is analysed for equivalent lateral
forces and designed as per the load combinations given in reinforced concrete design codes.
But real nonlinear behaviour of the structure and the failure mechanism has not been explicitly
brought in this procedure. Nonlinear static analysis procedures help in identifying the possible
failure modes, the inelastic base shears and inelastic displacements that building is going to be
experienced. Modelling the inelastic behaviour of the structural elements for different levels of
performance is an important step towards performance evaluation of building. Considering the
loss due to damage and cost of repair, major revisions are taking place in seismic codes for performance based design of buildings with different levels of damage. In performance based design

288

K Rama Raju et al
Case1_C1

Case1-C2

Case1_C3

Case2_C1

Case2_C2

Case2_C3

Case1_C4

Case1_B1

Case1_B2

Case2_C4

Case2_B1

Case2_B2

20

Stress(N/mm2)

Stress(N/mm2)

20
15
10
5

15
10

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.02

Strain

Strain

Case1

Case2

0.04

Case3_C1

Case3_C2

Case3_C3

Case4_C1

Case4_C2

Case4_C3

Case3_C4

Case3_C5

Case3_C6

Case4_C4

Case4_C5

Case4_B1

Case3_B1

Case3_B2

Case4_B2

Case4_B3

Stress(N/mm2)

Stress(N/mm2)

20
10
0
0

0.01

0.02

Strain

Case3

0.03

0.04

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Strain

Case4

Note: C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 represent columns and B1, B2 and B3 represent beams

Figure 4. Stressstrain curve for typical beam and column members.

acceptance criteria and capacity demand comparisons are expressed in terms of displacements.
Hence, the determination of inelastic deformation capacity is an essential step in performance
based evaluation of buildings.
The analyses of the structure are carried out using SAP2000, adopting a member-by-member
modelling approach. Inelastic beam and column members are modelled as elastic elements with
plastic hinges at their ends. The moment rotation characteristics of the plastic hinges are estimated from section analysis using appropriate nonlinear constitutive laws for concrete and steel.
The lumped plasticity approach is used in SAP2000 for deformation capacity estimates. Various
parameters which are directly related with these deformations are; (i) steel ductility, (ii) bar pullout from the anchorage zone and (iii) axial load ratio, shear-span ratio and concrete strength. The
significant parameters considered in the expressions of yield and ultimate rotation are; (i) steel
type, by a numerical coefficient variable according to the type, (ii) percentage of the compressive
axial load applied with respect to the ultimate one, (iii) ratio between the shear length to the section height, (iv) ratio between the mechanical steel reinforcement percentage in tension and compression, (v) compressive strength of concrete and (vi) steel stirrups percentage and an efficiency
factor depending on the geometrical placement of stirrups in the section. In the present study, an
analytical procedure based on Eurocode-8 is used to study the deformation capacity of beams
and columns in terms of yield, plastic and ultimate rotations ( y , pl , um ). Description of these
capacities is given in Appendix A. The deformations define the state of damage in the structure
through three limit states of the NEHRP Guidelines (1997) and the FEMA 356 (2000), namely
(i) Limit State Near Collapse (NC) level, corresponding to the Collapse prevention (CP) level
(ii) Limit State of Significant Damage (SD) level, corresponding to the Life Safety (LS) level
and to the single performance level for which new structures are designed according to most

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

289

current seismic design codes, (iii) Limit State of Damage Limitation (DL) level, corresponding
to the Immediate Occupancy (IO) level.
The drift or chord rotation of a member over the shear span (Ls ) is a primary parameter which
captures the macroscopic behaviour of the member. FEMA guidelines imply values of yield rotation approximately equal to 0.005 rad for RC beams and columns, or to 0.003 rad for walls, to
be added to plastic hinge rotations for conversion into total rotations, which are approximately
equal to the chord rotation or drift of the shear span. According to these codes, chord rotation
is the summation of yield rotation ( y ) plus plastic rotation ( P ). Acceptable limiting values
of these plastic rotations have been specified for primary or secondary components of the structural system under collapse prevention earthquake as a function of the type of reinforcement,
axial and shear force levels and detailing of RC members. For primary components acceptable
chord rotations or drifts for collapse prevention earthquake are taken as 1.5 times lower than the
ultimate drifts or rotations. For life safety earthquake, the acceptable chord rotations or drifts for
primary and secondary components are taken as about 1.5 or 2 times lower than the ultimate rotations or drifts. Expressions from Eurocode 8 are used to evaluate the yield, plastic and ultimate
rotation capacities of RC elements of the RC framed buildings. The yield, plastic and ultimate
rotation capacities in terms of non-dimensional numbers is estimated. User-defined PMM (PM-M hinges are assigned at the ends of column members which are subjected to axial force
and bending moments) and M3 (M3 hinges are assigned at the ends of beam members which
are subjected to bending moments) curves are developed using the rotation capacities of members. The default hinge option in SAP2000 assumes average values of hinge properties instead
of carrying out detailed calculation for each member. The default-hinge model assumes the same
deformation capacity for all columns regardless of their axial load and their weak and strong
axis orientation. Hence nonlinear static analyses are carried out using user-defined plastic hinge
properties. Definition of user-defined hinge properties requires moment rotation characteristics
of each element.
The nonlinear static analysis is carried out to generate the corresponding capacity curves. The
moment-rotation analyses are carried out considering section properties and a constant axial load
on the structural element. In development of user-defined hinges for columns, the maximum
load due to several possible combinations considered need to be given as input in SAP2000. Following, the calculation of the ultimate rotation capacity of an element, acceptance criteria are
defined and labelled as IO, LS and CP as shown in figure 5. The typical user-defined moment

Figure 5. Typical Moment vs. Rotation curves with acceptance criteria.

290

K Rama Raju et al

USER-DEFINED-CASE1
USER-DEFINED-CASE3
DEFAULT

USED DEFINED_PMM_CASE1
USER DEFINED_PMM_CASE2
USER DEFINED_PMM_CASE3
USER DEFINED_PMM_CASE4
DEFAULT_PMM

USER-DEFINED-CASE2
USER-DEFINED-CASE4

1.5

1.2

0.4
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

-0.4

MOMENT/SF

MOMENT/SF

0.8

0.5

-0.8

-1.2

(a)

ROTATION/SF

(b)

ROTATION/SF

Figure 6. (a) Typical user-defined momentrotation hinge properties (M3)-Beams. Note: SF is scale
factor. (b) Moment vs. Rotation Curves (P-M-M) - Columns.

rotation hinge properties for beams and columns (M3 and PMM hinges in SAP 2000) used for
the analysis are shown in figures 6a and b, respectively. The values of these performance levels
can be obtained from the test results in the absence of the test data, the values recommended by
ATC-40 for IO, LS and CP are 0.2, 0.5 and 0.9. Where,  is the length of plastic hinge
plateau. The acceptance criteria for performance with in the damage control performance range
are obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the IO and the LS structural
performance levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance within the limited safety structural performance range are obtained by interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the life safety
and the collapse prevention structural performance levels. A target performance is defined by a
typical value of roof drift, as well as limiting values of deformation of the structural elements.
To determine whether a building meets performance objectives, response quantities from the
pushover analysis should be considered with each of the performance levels.

5. Evaluation of seismic performance of buildings

The seismic performance of a building is measured by the state of damage under a certain level
of seismic hazard. The state of damage is quantified by the drift of the roof and the displacement
of the structural elements. Initially, gravity push is carried out using force control method. It is
followed by lateral push with displacement control using SAP2000. For carrying out displacement based pushover analysis, target displacement need to be defined. Pushover analysis gives
an insight into the maximum base shear that the structure is capable of resisting. A building
performance level is a combination of the performance levels of the structure and the nonstructural components. A performance level describes a limiting damage condition which may
be considered satisfactory for a given building with specific ground motion.
The structural performances levels as per FEMA 356 are; (1) Operational, (2) Immediate
occupancy (IO), (3) Life safety (LS), (4) Structural Stability and (5) Collapse prevention (CP).
Typical values of roof drifts for the three performance levels (FEMA356) are; (i) Immediate
Occupancy: Transient drift is about 1% or negligible permanent drift, (ii) Life Safety: Transient drift is about 2% or 1% permanent drift, (iii) Collapse Prevention: 4% transient drift or
permanent drift.

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

291

Seismic demand is the representation of earthquake ground motion and capacity is a representation of the structures ability to resist the seismic demand. There are three methods to establish
the demand of the building. They are (i) capacity spectrum method, (ii) equal displacement
method and (iii) displacement coefficient method. Out of these three methods, capacity spectrum
method is widely used and it is used in the present study.
Instead of plotting the capacity curve, the base acceleration can be plotted with respect to the
roof displacement. This curve is called the capacity spectrum. Simultaneously, the acceleration
and displacement spectral values as calculated from the corresponding response spectrum for a
certain damping (say 5 percent initially), are plotted as the ordinate and abscissa, respectively.
The representation of the two curves in one graph is termed as the Acceleration versus Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format. The locus of the demand points in the ADRS plot
is referred to as the demand spectrum. The performance point is the point where the capacity
spectrum crosses the demand spectrum. If the performance point exists and the damage state at
this point is acceptable, then the building is considered to be adequate for the design earthquake.
It must be emphasized that the pushover analysis is approximate in nature and is based on a
statically applied load. Pushover analysis gives an estimate of seismic capacity of the structural
system and its components based on its material characteristics and detailing of member dimensions. Moreover, the analysis cannot predict accurately the higher mode responses of a flexible
building. Therefore, it must be used with caution while interpreting the actual behaviour under
seismic load.

6. Results and discussion

The capacity curves (Base shear vs. roof displacement capacities) are generated for both default
(DF) and user-defined (UD) hinge properties given in SAP2000. The capacity curve give an
insight of maximum base shear the structure can resist and they are shown in figure 7. In all cases,
lateral forces are applied monotonically with step-by-step nonlinear static analysis (displacement
controlled) over the stresses found on structure from gravity load analysis. From the nonlinear
static analysis, it is observed a remarkable difference in base shear capacities of models with the
revisions of the code, i.e., case 1 to case 4. The base shear in case 4 has a high capacity of 660 kN,
whereas for case 1, the base shear is found to be 360 kN. From this, it is clear that according
to the present codes of practice, the buildings designed as per the past codes of practice needs
enhancement in lateral strength, which can be achieved through various retrofitting measures.
The salient features of pushover curve for various cases are summarized in table 3. Table 3 gives
information about number of hinges formed at different performance levels, base shear, and roof
displacement for the four design cases considered. It is observed that case 4 building shows high
lateral resistance compared to all other buildings. The beam and column elements are modelled
as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by defining plastic hinges at both ends of
beams and columns. The frames are modelled with default and user-defined hinge properties to
study the possible differences in the results of pushover analysis. The base shear capacity and
hinge formation mechanism for models with the default and user-defined hinges at yield and
ultimate, a significant variation is observed. This may be due to the fact that, the orientation and
the axial load level of the columns are not properly accounted for in the default-hinge properties.
Based on the observations in the hinging patterns, it is apparent that the user-defined hinge model
is more successful in capturing the hinging mechanism compared to the model with the default
hinge. This shows that the use of default hinge may need special care and understanding.

292

K Rama Raju et al
800
700

Base Shear (kN)

600
500
400
300
Case1-DF
Case3-DF
Case1-UD
Case3-UD

200
100

Case2-DF
Case4-DF
Case2-UD
Case4-UD

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 7. Base shear vs roof displacement.

Table 3. Salient features of push-over curve.

BS (kN) Disp (m) AB BIO IOLS LSCP CPC CD DE >E Total

Cases
Case1-DF
Case1-UD
Case2-DF
Case2-UD
Case3-DF
Case3-UD
Case4-DF
Case4-UD

Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate

325.54
363.40
310.11
356.10
357.80
555.17
358.97
553.34
388.71
634.26
388.71
632.52
596.39
787.82
434.80
664.88

0.119
0.293
0.169
0.201
0.149
0.484
0.166
0.483
0.153
0.484
0.169
0.509
0.275
0.594
0.200
0.447

168
158
185
181
192
145
192
145
194
150
194
151
181
145
182
160

14
0
2
5
4
10
4
11
2
12
2
11
1
13
0
4

0
4
2
1
0
18
0
21
0
19
0
16
0
6
0
7

0
13
2
2
0
20
0
19
0
14
0
17
0
11
0
8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
7
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
3

0
0
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

182
182
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
182
182
182
182

Note: BS: base Shear, Disp: Roof displacement in meters, AB: details of hinges falling in operational range, BIO:
details of hinges falling in operational and immediate occupancy range, IOLS: details of hinges falling in immediate
occupancy and life safety range, LSCP: details of hinges falling in life safety and collapse prevention, CPC: details of
hinges falling in collapse prevention and ultimate strength range, CD: details of hinges falling in ultimate strength and
residual strength range, DE: details of hinges falling in residual strength and failure range.

The capacity curves obtained are converted to corresponding capacity spectra using
Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) format (recommended in ATC-40) and
overlapped with code conforming Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

293

Earthquake (MCE) demand spectra of IS: 18932002 as shown in figure 8. The performance
points observed on DBE and MCE with importance factor (I) = 1.5 are shown in table 4 and
table 5, respectively. In user-defined and default hinge models, for case 1, the performance points
are observed in nonlinear range and, for and case 2, case 3 and case 4 the performance points are
in linear range for DBE with I = 1.5. For case 1 and case 2 no performance points are observed
for MCE with I = 1.5. The Performance points are observed for case 3 and case 4 for MCE with
I = 1.5. This indicates that case 1 and case 2 buildings are failed in MCE with I = 1.5.

Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Case1-DF
Case2-DF
Case3-DF
Case4-DF
DBE-1.5

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Case1-UD
Case2-UD
Case3-UD
Case4-UD
MCE-1.5

0.35

0.40

Spectral Displacement(m)

Figure 8. Capacity spectra with DBE and MCE.

Table 4. Performance points (DBE, I = 1.5).

Cases
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4

Displacement (m)
DF
UD
0.204
0.176
0.169
0.181

0.21
0.181
0.244
0.181

Base shear (kN)

DF
UD
356.4
413.263
426.878
400.449

346.788
400.449
384.431
400.449

Note: DF: Default hinge option with default material properties,

UD: User-defined hinge option with user-defined material properties

Table 5. Performance points (MCE, I = 1.5).

Cases
Cases
Case 3
Case 4

Displacement (m)
DF
0.455
0.3976

UD
0.466
0.437

Base shear (kN)

DF
640.718
732.821

UD
625.501
662.342

Note: DF: Default hinge option with default material properties,

UD: User-defined hinge option with user-defined material properties

0.45

294

K Rama Raju et al

7. Conclusions
The nonlinear static analysis (Pushover Analysis) is carried out for a typical 6-storey office
building designed for four load cases, considering three revisions of the Indian (IS:1893 and
IS:456) codes. In the present study, nonlinear stressstrain curves for confined concrete and
user-defined hinge properties as per CEN Eurocode 8 are used. A simplified procedure is proposed for considering user-defined hinges. The elastic beam and column members are modelled
as elastic elements with plastic hinges at their ends. Analytical models are incorporated to
represent inelastic material behaviour and inelastic member deformations for simulating numerically the post yield behaviour of the structure under expected seismic load. The acceptance
criteria with reference to the three performance levels such as IO, LS and CP are prerequisite
for estimation of inelastic member as well as global structural behaviour. The present analysis involves two steps; (i) force-controlled to obtain the stresses under gravity loads, (ii) the
stressed structure, then is analysed for displacement-control option till target displacement is
achieved. The capacity curves representing the relationship between the base shear and displacement of the roof is a convenient representation, can be easily followed by an engineer for various
retrofitting strategies. The capacity curves are converted to corresponding capacity spectra using
Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) format and overlapped with code conforming Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) demand
spectra of IS: 18932002 to obtain the performance points. The necessity of enhancing the lateral strength of existing buildings designed as per the past codes of practice with reference to
the present version of IS:18932002 and IS:4562000 is clearly brought out. A significant variation is observed in base shear capacities and hinge formation mechanisms for four design cases
with default and user-defined hinges at yield and ultimate. This may be due to the fact that, the
orientation and the axial load level of the columns cannot be taken into account properly by the
default-hinge properties. Based on the observations in the hinging patterns, it is apparent that the
user-defined hinge model is more successful in capturing the hinging mechanism compared to
the model with the default hinge.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. N Lakshmanan, former Director, CSIR- Structural Engineering Research
Centre, for his support and encouragement during this work. This paper is being published with
the kind permission of the Director, CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai,
India.

Appendix A
Chord rotation of RC members at yielding
Deformations of RC members at yielding are important for the determination of different performance levels in strength assessment of existing building. Yield deformation plays a major role
in the determination of ductility and damage index as well. Yield capacities are normally represented in terms of curvature. Curvature can be easily quantified in terms of section and material
properties.

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

295

Curvature of a section is calculated on the basis of plane-section hypothesis. If yielding of the

section is governed by yielding of tension steel, or due to significant nonlinearity of the concrete
in compression zone, then the yield curvature is given by


fy
c
1.8 f c

;
y = min

.
(A1)
Ec k y d
Es 1 k y d k y d
The compression zone depth at yield k y (normalized to d) is k y = (n 2 A2 + 2n B)1/2 n A, in
which n = E s /E c and A, B are given by Eq. (A2) or (A3), depending on whether yielding is
controlled by the yielding of tension steel or by nonlinearity in the compression zone;
A = +  + v +

A = +  + v



N
N
; B = +   + 0.5v 1 +  +
,
bd f y
bd f y

(A2)



N
N
; B = +   + 0.5v 1 +  , (A3)
+  + v

c E s bd
1.8nbd f c

where, d = effective depth of the section, b = width of the section, N = axial load, E s =
modulus of elasticity of steel in MPa, E c = modulus of elasticity of concrete in MPa, Ast =
Area of tension reinforcement, Asc = Area of compression reinforcement, n = E s /E c , =
Ratio of tension reinforcement = Ast /bd,  = Ratio of compression reinforcement = Asc /bd,
= Ratio of web reinforcement, = d  /d.
Yield moment is obtained from the following equation



k 2y
ky
My
0.5 (1 + )
= y Ec
2
3
bd 3





E s 
v
+
(A4)
1 k y + k y   +
(1 ) (1 ) ,
2
6
where, L v = shear span = M/V = ratio of moment to shear, h = depth of the section,
y = steel yield strain = f y /E s , f y = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement, db = average diameter of the longitudinal bars, f c = uniaxial cylindrical concrete strength in MPa, z =
lever arm length = dd  .
The deformation corresponding to chord rotation at yield rotation is




y db f y
h
L v + v z
+ 0.00135 1 + 1.5
+
y = y
(A5)
.
3
Lv
d d  6 fc

Chord rotation of RC members at ultimate

The value of ultimate rotation (elastic plus inelastic part) of concrete members under cyclic
loading is calculated according to Eurocode 8-Design of structures for earthquake resistance
um =



 
max (0.01; ) 0.225 Lv 0.35 sx

1
25 f yw 1.25100d ,
0.016 0.3
fc
el
max (0.01; )
h
fc

(A6)

296

K Rama Raju et al

where, el = 1.5, for primary seismic elements, 1.0 for secondary seismic elements, =
N/bhf c ,  =  f y / f c , = f y / f c , sx = transverse reinforcement ratio = Asv /bs , s = spacing
of stirrups, f yh = yield strength of hoop steel, d = diagonal reinforcement ratio in each diagonal direction, = confinement effectiveness factor, bo = core width of the section, h o = core
depth of the section, bi = distance between the consecutive bars
 2



bi
s
s
1
= 1
.
1
2bo
2h o
6h o bo
The value of plastic part of the chord rotation capacity of concrete members under cyclic loading
may be calculated from Eurocode 8-Design of structures for earthquake resistance
pl = um





max (0.01; ) 0.3 0.2 sx
1

y =
0.0145 0.25
f c 25
el
max (0.01; )

f yw
fc




1.275100d .
(A7)

References
Applied Technology Council, ATC-40, 1996, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Vol.1
and 2, California
CEN. Eurocode 8 2001 Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part-1. European Standard PREN
19981. Draft no. 4. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization
Chung H S, Yang K H, Lee Y H and Eun H C 2002 Stressstrain curve of laterally confined concrete,
Eng. Struct. 24: 11531163
Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of
buildings, BS EN 19983:2005
FEMA 273, 1997 NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 356, 2000 Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, ASCE for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Fib Bulletin of TG7.2 2003, Displacement-based design and assessment, ACI Struct. J. V. 98, No.2,
March-April 2001
Inel M and Ozmen H B 2006, Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings, Eng. Struct. 28: 14941502
IS: 4561964; 1978;2000, Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi-110002
IS: 18931966;1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi 110002
IS: 1893(Part 1):2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi 110002
Krawinkler H and Seneviratna G D P K 1998, Pros and cons of a push-over analysis of seismic performance
evaluation, Eng. Struct. 20: 452464
Panagiotakos T B and Fardis M N 1999, Estimation of inelastic deformation demands in multistory RC
buildings, J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 28: 501528
Panagiotakos T B and Fardis M N 2001 Deformation of reinforced concrete members at yielding and
ultimate, ACI Struct. J. 98(2): 135148

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings

297

Rama Raju K, Cinitha A, Kamatchi P and Nagesh R Iyer, 2009, Estimation of enhanced design base shear
for strengthening the existing RC buildings designed as per IS Codes Prior To IS: 1893 -2002 By Seismic
Coefficient Method, J. Institution of Eng. 90: 292297
SAP 2000 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design Analysis Reference Manual,
Version 9
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Volume 1 and 2, 1997 edition, Published by International Conference of
Building Officials