Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 399–409 | Cite as

Seismic demand evaluation of medium ductility RC moment frames using nonlinear procedures

  • Hosein GhaffarzadehEmail author
  • Nima Talebian
  • Roya Kohandel
Technical Papers


Performance-based earthquake engineering is a recent focus of research that has resulted in widely developed design methodologies due to its ability to realistically simulate structural response characteristics. Precise prediction of seismic demands is a key component of performance-based design methodologies. This paper presents a seismic demand evaluation of reinforced concrete moment frames with medium ductility. The accuracy of utilizing simplified nonlinear static analysis is assessed by comparison against the results of time history analysis on a number of frames. Displacement profiles, drift demand and maximum plastic rotation were computed to assess seismic demands. Estimated seismic demands were compared to acceptance criteria in FEMA 356. The results indicate that these frames have sufficient capacity to resist interstory drifts that are greater than the limit value.


seismic demand evaluation pushover analysis time history analysis plastic rotations FEMA 356 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barros RC and Almeida R (2005), “Pushover Analysis of Asymmetric Three-dimensional Building Frames,” Journal of Civil Engineeringand Management, 11(1): 3–12.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Chopra Ak and Goel RK (2002), “A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings,” Earthquake and Structural Dynamics, 31: 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ElHowary HA and Mehanny SSF (2011), “Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation of RC Moment Frame Buildings in Moderate Seismic Zones,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40: 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fajfar P and Fischinger MM (1988), “N2-a Method for Non-linear Seismic Analysis of Regular Structures,” Proceedings of the Ninth world Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  6. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356) Prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, Washington (DC).Google Scholar
  7. Han SW, Kim ES and Hwang SM (2007), “Variability of Seismic Demands according to Different Sets of Earthquake Ground Motions,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 16: 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang K and Kuang JS (2010), “On the Applicability of Pushover Analysis for Seismic Evaluation of Medium- and High-rise Buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 19: 573–588.Google Scholar
  9. Iwan WD (1999), “Implications of Near-fault Ground Motion for Structural Design,” Proceedings of US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Maui, Hawaii, U.S.A. (available from PEER, UC Berkeley, U.S.A.).Google Scholar
  10. Kalkan E (2006), “Prediction of Seismic Demands in Building Structures,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  11. Kalkan E and Kunnath SK (2006), “Adaptive Modal Combination Procedure for Nonlinearstatic Analysis of Building, Structures,” Structural Engineering, 132(11): 1721–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalkan E and Kunnath SK (2007), “Assessment of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings,” Engineering Structures, 29(3): 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim S and Kurama Y (2008), “An Alternative Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Displacement Demands,” Engineering Structures, 30: 3793–3807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim T and Kim J (2009), “Seismic Demand of an RC Special Moment Frame Building,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 18: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998), “Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis for Seismic Performance Evaluation,” Engineering Structures, 20(4–6): 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunnath SK and Gupta SK (2000), “Validity of Deformation Demand Estimates Using Nonlinear Static Procedures,” Proceedings of US-Japan Workshop on Performance-based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  17. Kunnath SK and John Jr A (2000), “Validity of Static Procedures in Performance-based Seismic Design,” Proceedings of ASCE Structures Congress, Philadelphia, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  18. Kunnath SK and Kalkan E (2004), “Evaluation of Seismic Deformation Demands Using Non-linear Procedures In Multistory Steel and concrete Moment Frames,” ISET Journal of Technology, 41(1): 159–181.Google Scholar
  19. Mao Jianmeng, Zhai Changhai and Xie Lili (2008), “An Improved Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure for Estimating Seismic Demands of Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 7(1): 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miranda E (1997), “Estimation of Maximum Interstory Drift Demands in Displacement-based Design,” In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). .....Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Mortezaei A, Ronagh HR, Kheyroddin A and Ghodrati Amiri G (2011), “Effectiveness of Modified Pushover Analysis Procedure for the Estimation of Seismic Demands of Buildings Subjected to Near-fault Earthquakes Having Forward Directivity,” The Structural Design.of Tall and Special Buildings, Published online in Wiley Online Library, DOI: 10.1002/tal.553.Google Scholar
  22. Nguyen A, Chintanapakdee C and Hayashikawa T (2010), “Assessment of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures for Seismic Evaluationof BRBF Buildings,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66: 1118–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakash V, Powell GH and Campbell S (1993), DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description and User Guide, Department of Civil Engineering University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  24. Ruiz-García J and Miranda E (2010), “Probabilistic Estimation of Residual Drift Demands for Seismic Assessment of Multi-story Framed Buildings,” Engineering Structures, 32: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seneviratna GDPK and Krawinkler H (1997), “Evaluation of Inelastic MDOF Effects for Seismic Design,” John A. BlumeEarthquake Engineering Center Report No. 120, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  26. Somerville P, Smith N, Puntamurthula S and Sun J (1997), “Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project,” Report No. SAC/BD 97/04, SAC Background Document, SAC Joint Venture: Richmond, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Vamvatsikos D and Fragiadakis M (2010), “Incremental Dynamic Analysis for Estimating Seismic Performance Sensitivity and Uncertainty,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39: 141–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hosein Ghaffarzadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nima Talebian
    • 1
  • Roya Kohandel
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudai, JohorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations