KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 759–770 | Cite as

Estimation of curvature and displacement ductility in reinforced concrete buildings

Research Paper Structural Engineering


Ensuring sufficient ductility in building load bearing systems and elements of the load bearing system is quite important for their seismic performance. The Seismic Codes stipulate that certain requirements must be met to maintain ductility values above a certain level. The purpose of this study is to determine how ductility values of both elements and load bearing systems vary as parameters related to the conditions specified in the codes change and as estimates of these values are used. With this aim in mind, the curvature ductility in columns and beams of a four-storey Reinforced Concrete (RC) building differs depending on parameters that include the axial load level, longitudinal reinforcement, transverse reinforcement, compression bar ratio and concrete strength. The value of the curvature ductility was found to vary according to the number of parameters and variance range, which was found to be 60 and 135 in the beam section and column section, respectively. Later, a pushover analysis was applied to 540 different statuses of the sample RC system for the same parameters, and the ratio variations and respective displacement (global) ductility of the frames were calculated. The relationship between obtained ductility values with the parameters, as well as the accuracy of the established model, were estimated using regression analyses (Multi-linear and Nonlinear Regression (MLR, NLR)) and 11 various Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) methods. According to the estimation methods, it was found that the test parameters that significantly affect curvature ductility values are not sufficient to explain the displacement ductility values. On the other hand, it was seen that the estimation strength of ANNs proved to be greater than MLR in both curvature ductility and displacement ductility. Outcomes also indicated that the NLR model exhibits superior performance for estimating displacement ductility.


earthquake ductility pushover analysis neural networks regression analyses 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACI Committee 318 (2005). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.Google Scholar
  2. Arslan, M. H., Ceylan, M., Kaltakcl, M. Y., Ozbay, Y., and Gulay, G. (2007). “Prediction of force reduction factor R of prefabricated industrial buildings using neural networks.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 117–134Google Scholar
  3. Arslan, M. H. and Korkmaz, H. H. (2007). “What is to be learned from damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey?” Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC-40 (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Bal, I. E., Crowley, H., Pinho, R., and Gulay, F. G. (2007). Structural characteristics of turkish RC building stock in northern marmara region for loss assessment applications, Research Report No: ROSE-2007/03, IUSS Press, Pavia.Google Scholar
  6. Bruneau, M. (2002). “Building damage from the Marmara. Turkey Earthquake of August. 1999.” Journal of Seismology, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 357–377.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of structures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. CSI, SAP2000 (2000). V-8. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Corley, W. G. (1966). “Rotational capacity of RC beams.” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. ST5, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
  10. EC 8 (2004). “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.” European Norm. European Committee for Standardisation, European Committee for Standardisation Central Secretariat, rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. Ekwueme, C. G. (1999) “Determination of displacement limits for the seismic rehabilitation of concrete buildings.” The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 8,Issue 2, pp. 79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elnashai, A. S. (2000). “Analysis of the damage potential of the Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake of 17 August 1999.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 22,Issue 7, pp. 746–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elneshai, A. S. and Sarno, L. D. (2008). Fundamentals of earthquake engineering, John Wiley Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Fajfar, P. and Fischinger, M. (1988). “N2 — A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings.” Proc. 9th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Kyoto, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
  15. Fardis, M. N. and Biskinis, D. E. (2003). “Deformation capacity of RC members, as controlled by flexure or shear.” Proceedings of the International Symposium Honoring Shunsuke Otani on Performancebased Engineering for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Structures, pp. 511–530.Google Scholar
  16. FEMA-356 (2000). Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA.Google Scholar
  17. FEMA-440 (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA.Google Scholar
  18. Fillitsa, V. K. and Bouckovalas, G. (1997). “Description and analysis of building damage due to Pyrgos, Greece earthquake.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 16,Issue 2, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
  19. Goel, R. K. (2001). “Performance of buildings during the January 26.” 2001 Bhuj Earthquake, http://ceenve.ceng.calpoly.edu/goel/indian_eqk/index.htm.
  20. IBC (2003). The international building code, International Code Council, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Inel, M. and Özmen, H. B. (2006). “Effect of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis reinforced concrete buildings.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, No. 11, pp. 1494–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanit, R., Ozkan, Ö., and Gunduz, M. (2007). “Cost assessment of concrete and steel types for office buildings: An exploratory study.” Building and Environment, Vol. 42,Issue 9, pp. 3404–3409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karakostas, C., Lekidis, V., Makarios, T., Salonikios, T., Sous, S., and Demosthenous, M. (2005). “Seismic response of structures and infrastructure facilities during the Lefkada, Greece earthquake of 14/ 8/2003.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 27,Issue 2, pp. 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwak, H. G. and Kim, S. P. (2002). “Nonlinear analysis of RC beams based on moment-curvature relation.” Computer and Structures, Vol. 80,Issues 7–8, pp. 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li, L. X., Chan, T. H. T., and Zheng, R. (2003). “Statistical analysis of online strain response and its application in fatigue assessment of a long-span steel bridge.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 25,Issue 14, pp. 1731–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makarios, T. (2005). “Optimum definition of equivalent non-linear SDF system in pushover procedure of multistory r/c frames.” Journal Engineering Structures; Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 814–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mander, J. B. (1984). Seismic design of bridge piers, Research Report 84-2, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  28. Matlab (2006). Neural networks toolbox user guide.Google Scholar
  29. Mattock, A. H. (1967). “Discussion of ‘Rotational capacity of RC beams’.” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST2, pp. 519–522Google Scholar
  30. Naderzadeh, A. and Khademi, M. H. (1998). “A preliminary report on the Ardekul, Iran Earthquake of 10 May, 1997.” Earthquake Hazard Centre Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 3 p. 7.Google Scholar
  31. Panagiotakos, T. and Fardis, M. (2001). “Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
  32. Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. S. (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rafiq, Y., Bugmann, G., and Easterbrook, D. J. (2001). “Neural network design for engineering applications.” Computer and Structures, Vol. 79, No. 17, pp. 1541–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sawyer, H. A. (1964). “Design of concrete frames for two failure states.” Proceedings of the international symposium on the flexural mechanics of RC, ASCE-ACI, Miami, pp. 405–431.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). “Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.” ACI J., Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
  37. Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J., and Mosalam, K. W. (2003). “Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17. 1999 Kocaeli. Turkey Earthquake. and the seismic design and construction practice in Turkey.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SPSS Inc. (2003). Clementine 9.0 algorithms guide.Google Scholar
  39. TEC-2007 (2007). Turkish earthquake (seismic) code, Regulations on Structures Constructed in Disaster Regions, Ministry of Public Works And Settlement, Ankara.Google Scholar
  40. UBC-97 (1997). Uniform building code, International Conference of Buildings Official, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Yuksel, S. B. and Arslan, M. H. (2009). “Design force estimation using artificial neural network for four cylindrical group silos.” Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Civil Engineering, Engineering and Architecture FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations